^ 


ri 


^v-. 


:U, 


^X1}. 


r 


WtvV'^i 


oi  ^^«  « 


i«tj 


%. 


ii. 


PRINCETON,     N.    J. 


\cJ6n/e//y.  Y\ .  XTwJW  r(A 


■:^ 


sc^ 


.9//.//.. 


Division _— -    .  .  rr  .  -^^ 

Section  ..''.^f..^^  I 
Number 


(il-f?A    "«^    '•'- 


/Ar7.  ^A-i 


TRUE    AND    COMPLETE 


iTAiamAjriv^ 


OP 


ALL  THE  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  PHILADELPHIA  PRESBYTERY, 
AND  OF  THE  PHILADELPHIA  SYNOD, 


IN  RELATION  TO  THE  CASE  OF  THK 


REV.    ALBERT    BARNES. 


"  Errores,  qui  non  refelluntur  probari  videntur;  gangreense  enim  sunt,  quas  irritant, 
non  curant,  blandiora  remedia." 

Not  to  refute  error,  is  virtually  to  approve  it;  I'or  it  is  a  gangrene  which  mild  reme- 
dies aggravate,  but  do  not  cure. 


PHILADELPHIA : 

Printed  bij  Russell  ^  Martien,  No.  22^  Walnut  Street. 
1830. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


The  first  part  of  this  Narrative  was  published  several  months 
since,  in  reply  to  an  anonymous  publication  which  was  in- 
tended to  impeach  the  conduct  and  motives  of  those  members 
of  the  Philadelphia  Presbytery,  who  had  resisted  the  recep- 
tion and  installation  of  Mr.  Barnes,  upon  the  grounds  of  the 
doctrinal  errors  contained  in  his  Sermon.  The  latter  part  of 
the  Narrative  is  now  published,  to  counteract  the  effect,  which 
might  otherwise  be  produced,  by  a  pretended  history  of  the 
late  proceedings  of  the  Philadelphia  Presbytery,  published  by 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Ely  in  the  "  Philadelphian,"  of  which  he  is  the 
Editor.  This  account,  so  far  from  presenting  a  faithful  copy 
of  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery,  may  be  considered  through- 
out as  a  tissue  of  plausible  misrepresentation. 

This  Narrative  would  not  have  appeared  before  the  public, 
if  the  above  account  had  not  appeared ;  but  the  cause  of  truth 
now  imperiously  demands  its  publication.  The  question  to 
which  it  refers  is  not  of  local,  but  general  interest,  and  one 
which  is  likely  to  engage  the  attention  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  throughout  its  entire  bounds.  For  the  manner  in  which 
the  Narrative  has  been  prepared,  the  writer  alone  is  respon- 
sible;  for  the  faithfulness  with  which  the  facts  have  been 
presented,  he  confidently  appeals  to  every  candid  witness  of 
the  Presbyterial  proceedings.  As  the  Clerk  of  Presbytery,  his 
duty  rendered  it  incumbent  upon  him  to  pay  close  attention 
to  every  item  of  business  as  it  was  introduced,  and  he  pledges 


(     4     ) 

his  veracity  to  the  public,  that  he  has  not  been  guilty  of  any 
intentional  misstatement,  in  the  account  which  he  now  fur- 
nishes. The  only  request  he  has  to  make  is,  that  those  who 
have  become  interested  in  this  affair,  should  form  their  opin- 
ion, not  from  the  idle  gossip  to  which  it  has  given  rise,  but 
upon  the  strength  of  the  evidence  by  which  it  is  accompa- 
nied. 

WM.  M.  ENGLES. 
Philadelphia,  December  1 8th,  1 830. 


NARRATIVE. 


The  debates  in  the  Presbytery  of  Pliiladelphia,  on  the  recep- 
tion and  installation  of  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  have  been  re- 
garded with  unusual  interest  by  many,  as  involving  points  of 
great  moment  to  the  Presbyterian  Cliurch,  in  relation  both  to 
her  discipline  and  doctrine.  They  have  not  only  furnished  a 
pregnant  theme  for  conversation,  but  a  subject  for  the  essayist 
and  reporter.  Several  of  the  religious  periodicals  have  lent 
their  aid  in  circulating  statements,  from  which  the  spirit  of  im- 
partiality and  equal  justice  has  been  discarded.  Even  in  the 
earliest  stages  of  the  affair,  and  previous  to  any  decision,  this 
course  was  pursued,  with  the  evident  intention  of  prejudicing 
the  public  mind,  and  producing  an  effect  which  would  influence 
the  final  determination  of  the  Presbytery.  The  truth  should 
never  be  dreaded,  however  loudly  proclaimed  or  widely  dif- 
fused; but  when  honest  intentions  are  misrepresented,  and  facts 
are  misstated,  alarm  is  justifiable,  and  passiveness  becomes 
criminal. 

A  pamphlet  lately  published  in  the  city  of  New  York,  pro- 
fesses to  give  an  accurate  and  detailed  history  of  the  debates 
in  question,  in  which  the  names  of  the  speakers  are  mentioned, 
and  abstracts  of  their  speeches  furnished.  The  writer  of  it,  in 
our  opinion  was  totally  disqualified  for  his  task;  a  disqualifi- 
cation arising  either  from  entire  ignorance  of  his  subject,  or  a 
determined  dishonesty  in  its  exhibition.  He  alike  conceals  the 
weak  points  of  the  majority  and  the  strong  points  of  the  mino- 
rity. He  has  betrayed  little  capacity  for  comprehending  the 
argument,  and  less  discretion  in  publishing  his  incompetency. 
In  a  word,  the  Sketch  contains  just  sufficient  colouring  of 
truth,  to  give  plausibility  to  general  misrepresentation.  Many, 
however,  may  receive  his  report  as  true,  until  they  are  fur- 
nished with  more  authentic  information  ;  and  to  supply  this, 
we  have  been  reluctantly  compelled  to  abandon  the  reserve 
which  we  had  intended  to  observe  whilst  the  case  was  under 
judgment.  A  report  of  speeches  which  occupied  a  debate  of 
seven  days  continuance,  is  not  our  intention.  Such  a  report, 
to  be  honest,  should  be  full,  and  would  not  only  be  tedious,  but 
at  this  time,  impracticable;  and  we  should  consider  our  can- 
dour and  integrity  in  jeopardy  by  an  imitation  of  the  writer  of 
the  "Sketch,"  who  reports  a  long  speech  in  three  unmeaning 
lines  of  a  pamphlet.  We  must,  however,  be  excused  in  follow- 
ing his  e.xample  in  one  particular ;  we  mean  his  freedom  in  the 


(     6     ) 

use  of  names.  In  exercising  this  privilege  for  the  purpose  of 
rendering  our  narrative  intelligible,  it  will  be  our  aim  to  "ren- 
der to  Csesar  the  things  which  are  Csesar's,"  avoiding  the  charge 
of  libel,  except  where  the  truth  may  be  construed  into  libel. 
This  much  being  premised,  we  proceed  to  give  the  promised 
detail  of  circumstances  in  the  order  of  their  occurrence. 

In  the  month  of it  became  the  subject  of  common 

conversation,  that  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  of  this  city 
were  directing  their  attention  to  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  of 
Morristown,  N.  J.  with  the  intention  of  presenting  him  a  call  to 
become  their  Pastor.  His  talents,  ministerial  fidelity,  and  suc- 
cess, were  spoken  of  in  terms  of  high  commendation.  At  the 
same  time,  it  was  notorious  that  the  candidate  had  never  occu- 
pied the  pulpit  of  the  First  Church,  and  that  with  the  exception 
of  a  few  individuals,  the  congregation  were  entirely  ignorant, 
as  far  as  their  personal  experience  was  concerned,  of  his  minis- 
terial qualifications.  In  addition  to  the  verbal  testimony  of 
friends,  a  sermon  preached  and  published  by  Mr.  Barnes,  was 
referred  to  in  proof  of  his  ability.  This  was  freely  circulated 
among  the  congregation,  and  the  commendations  bestowed 
upon  it  naturally  excited  the  curiosity  of  many  not  connected 
with  this  Church,  to  see  and  peruse  it.  A  rumour  was  at  length 
heard,  that  this  sermon  contained  errors  in  doctrine,  which 
placed  it  in  direct  conflict  with  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  the  truth  of  the  rumour  was  shortly 
afterwards  confirmed  in  a  review*  of  the  sermon,  published  in 
the  "  Philadelphian."  This  review  proposed  to  place  the  ser- 
mon of  Mr.  Barnes  and  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  in 
juxtaposition,  that  the  discrepancies  between  them  might  be 
observed  at  a  glance.  This  publication  was  decryed  as  an  un- 
generous and  malignant  personal  attack  upon  the  author  of  the 
sermon,  although  it  speaks  for  itself,  as  a  temperate  exercise  of 
a  right  which  every  individual  possesses,  of  canvassing  the 
merits  of  any  published  document.  A  reply  from  the  pen  of 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Wilson  soon  appeared,  and  a  controversy  of  con- 
siderable length  between  him  and  the  reviewer  was  conducted 
and  published  in  the  same  periodical. 

In  the  mean  time,  a  congregational  meeting  had  been  held 
in  the  First  Church,  and  a  call  was  determined  upon  for  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Barnes.  According  to  constitutional  provision,  it 
was  necessary  that  this  call  should  be  submitted  to  the  Pres- 
bytery, that  they  might  grant  or  withhold  their  permission  for 

*  The  writer  of  this  review  was  the  Rev.  Wm.  M.  Engles,  whose  name 
was  revealed  by  the  Editor,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ely,  to  certain  gentlemen  belong- 
ing to  the  First  Church,  who  had  taken  umbrage  at  the  review.  This  was 
done  without  his  concurrence,  and  he  felt  that  he  had  reason  to  complain, 
that  persons  totally  unauthorised  to  make  the  demand,  and  who  were  dis- 
posed to  make  an  ungenerous  use  of  the  information,  should  have  been  grati- 
fied by  the  Editor  at  the  first  expression  of  their  wish. 


(     7     ) 

its  prosecution  before  tlie  Presbytery  of  Elizabetlitown,  of 
which  Mr.  Barnes  was  a  member.  At  this  stage,  the  ecclesi- 
astical proceedings  in  the  case  commenced.  When  the  call  was 
presented  before  the  Presbytery,  at  their  stated  meeting  in  April, 
and  permission  asked  by  the  commissioners  to  prosecute  it,  the 
venerable  Dr.  Green  arose,  and  with  a  manner  characterised 
by  kindness  and  courtesy,  solicited  the  attention  of  the  judi- 
catory whilst  he  detailed  the  reasons  wjiich  would  induce  him 
to  give  a  negative  vote  on  the  motion  then  pending.  These 
reasons,  he  said,  were  founded  on  Mr.  Barnes'  doctrinal  errors, 
as  they  had  been  recently  proclaimed  to  the  world  in  his  printed 
sermon,  and  upon  which  he  proposed  briefly  to  animadvert. 
His  attempt,  however,  was  hastily  interrupted  by  a  compara- 
tively youthful  member  of  the  Presbytery,  who  aflirmed  it  to 
be  both  irregular  and  unkind,  to  make  the  sermon  a  ground 
of  judgment,  as  it  would  virtually  amount  to  an  arraignment 
and  trial  of  Mr.  Barnes  for  iieresy,  whilst  he  was  beyond  the 
jurisdiction  of  Presbytery.  A  motion  to  this  effect  was  made 
and  seconded,  and  a  debate  of  considerable  length  and  anima- 
tion ensued  on  the  point  of  order.  On  the  one  side,  it  was 
contended  that  a  congregation  had  an  unquestionable  right  to 
call  any  favourite  candidate,  provided  his  standing  was  regular 
in  a  co-ordinate  judicatory,  and  that  it  was  an  arbitrary  stretch 
of  authority  to  interfere  with  that  right  upon  any  grounds ;  that 
the  presentation  of  a  call  to  Presbytery  did  not  imply  a  right 
in  them  to  adjudicate,  but  was  merely  ^  pro  forma  proceeding; 
and  that  to  urge  objections  to  a  call,  grounded  upon  the  doc- 
trinal delinquencies  of  a  candidate,  however  proclaimed  in  his 
writings,  was  extra-judicial,  whilst  he  remained  unimpeached 
in  the  Presbytery  to  which  he  regularly  appertained.  On  the 
other  side,  it  was  maintained  that  a  congregation  which  had 
voluntarily  subjected  itself  to  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Presbytery, 
had  no  such  independent  right  as  that  which  was  pleaded; 
that  their  right  to  call  was  not  more  clearly  demonstrable  than 
the  right  of  Presbytery  to  object  and  refuse  permission  to  pro- 
ceed to  subsequent  steps;  that  the  very  fact  of  submitting  a 
call  to  Presbytery  for  approval,  implied  the  right  of  disapproval, 
and  so  far  from  being  a  mere  pro  forma  proceeding,  was  a 
direct  acknowledgment  of  jurisdiction;  and,  finally,  that  if 
members  of  a  Presbytery  had  a  right  to  vote  upon  such  a  ques- 
tion, they  had  a  right  also  to  state  the  reasons  which  deter- 
mined their  vote,  and  if  these  reasons  were  deduced  from  an  au- 
thentic printed  document,  they  neither  violated  the  constitution 
of  the  church  nor  the  laws  of  brotherly  kindness  in  urffinorthem. 
I  he  argument  being  finished,  it  was  decided  by  a  vote  of  thirty- 
seven  to  ten,  that  it  was  perfectly  regular  for  the  members  of 
Presbytery  to  raise  objections  to  the  prosecution  of  the  call, 
from  Mr.  Barnes'  printed  sermon;  the  Rev,  Dr.  M'Auley  and 
Messrs.  Patterson,  Belville,  Biggs,  Sanford,  and  Hoover,  being 


(     8     ) 

the  only  ministers  who  dissented.  The  attempt  to  enforce  the 
gag  law  upon  Presbytery  having  thus  happily  failed,  the  sermon 
of  Mr.  Barnes  was  read  entire  before  Presbytery,  by  its  order, 
and  the  debate  then  proceeded  upon  the  original  motion, "  Shall 
the  call  be  prosecuted  ?"  The  discussion  of  this  question  was 
protracted  and  singular  in  a  high  degree.  Those  who  are  now 
known  as  the  "minority,"  met  the  question  fearlessly  upon  its 
doctrinal  merits,  and  opposed  the  call  because  Mr.  Barnes  had 
recently  published  a  Sermon  on  the  Way  of  Salvation,  in  which, 

1.  He  makes  no  mention  of  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication by  faith. 

2.  In  which  he  contemptuously  rejects  the  doctrine  of  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin. 

3.  In  which  he  intimates  that  the  first  moral  taint  of  the 
creature  is  coincident  with  his  first  moral  action. 

4.  In  which  he  denies  that  Christ  sustained  the  penalty  of 
the  law,  and  employs  language  on  the  subject  highly  deroga- 
tory to  the  character  of  Christ. 

5.  In  which  he  .boldly  affirms  that  the  atonement  of  Christ 
had  no  specific  reference  to  individuals. 

6.  In  which  he  declares,  that  the  atonement  in  itself  secured 
the  Salvation  of  no  Man,  and  possessed  only  a  conditional 
efficacy. 

7.  In  which  he  maintains  that  the  entire  inability  of  the  sinner 
for  holy  actions  consisted  in  indisposition  of  the  will ;  and, 
finally,  in  which  he  declares  his  independence  of  all  formularies 
of  doctrine,  notwithstanding  his  professed  adherence  to  them.* 

In  addition  to  these  reasons,  it  was  also  incidentally  objected 
that  the  call  was  irregularly  framed,  omitting  one  important 
clause  of  the  form,  which  is  in  these  words,  "  and  having  good 
hopes  from  our  past  experience  of  your  labours."  The  fact  was, 
that  the  congregation  had  no  past  experience  of  the  labours  of 


*  It  was  thought  by  the  minorit}',  that  these  were  not  the  comfiarattvely 
venial  errors  of  Hopkinsianism,  but  the  more  dangerous  ones  of  Murdock, 
Taylor,  and  Fitch,  which  have  recently  been  grafted  on  the  original  stock. 

Professor  Woods  of  Andover,  in  his  late  admirable  reply  to  some  points  in 
ihesfieculative,fihilosofihical  religion  of  Dr.Taylor,  coincides  precisely  with 
the  minority  ofthe  Philadelphia  Presbytery,  in  estimating  the  doctrines  of  the 
New  Haven  School.  He  considers  them  as  in  a  high  degree  erroneous  and 
dangerous.  His  language  in  the  98th  page  of  his  Letters,  justly  expresses  the 
view  by  which  the  minority  were  influenced  in  their  proceedings.  It  is  as 
follows  :  "  Whether  right  or  wrong,  we  have  been  accustomed  to  consider 
the  controversy  which  early  arose  in  the  Church  between  the  Orthodox 
and  Pelagians,  and  which,  after  the  Reformation,  was  continued  between 
the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  on  one  side,  and  the  Arminians  or  Remon- 
strants on  the  other,  as  of  radical  importance.  Now,  how  would  you  expect 
us  to  feel,  and,  with  our  convictions,  how  ought  we  to  feel,  when  a  brother, 
who  has  firofessed  to  be  decidedly  Orthodox,  makes  an  attack  ufion  several 
ofthe  articles  of  our  fatth,  and  employs  language  on  the  subject  of  moral 
agency,  free-will,  de/iravity,  divine  influence,  i^c,  which  is  so  like  the  lan- 
guage ofAryninians  and  Pelagians,  that  it  would  require  some  labour  to 
discover  the  difference. 


(     9     ) 

the  candidate,  as  they  had  never  heard  him  preach;  and  this 
fact,  which  induced  tlie  remarkable  omission,  accounted  also 
for  another  fact,  that  but  fifly  votes  were  given  for  the  call, 
out  of  more  than  two  hundred  and  twenty  in  the  congregation 
who  were  legally  entitled  to  vote. 

On  the  part  of  the  majority  of  Presbytery,  the  debate  ^yas 
conducted  in  a  truly  novel  manner.  AVith  the  single  exception 
of  Thomas  Bradford,  Esq.  who  honestly  avovved  his  coincidence 
of  sentiment  with  Mr.  Barnes  upon  Hopkinsian  ground,  there 
was  a  studious  and  persevering  endeavour  to  avoid  the  doctri- 
nal discussion.  The  Rev.  Dr.  M'Auley  admitted  that  the  ser- 
mon contained  some  things  which  were  not  true,  some  that  were 
equivocal,  and  some  that  were  unhappily  expressed  ;  but  he 
maintained  that  we  had  nothing  to  do  with  Mr.  Barnes'  doctrinal 
sentiments,  although  the  Presbytery  had  just  decided  the  valid- 
ity of  such  a  scrutiny.  The  Rev.  JNlr.  Sanford  occupied  the 
same  ground,  substantially,  and  hoped  that  he  might  not  be 
considered  as  giving  any  opinion  upon  the  doctrinal  question. 
The  remarks  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ely  were  written  at  length,  and 
read  before  the  Presbytery,  and  the  tenor  of  them  was,  that 
although  there  were  many  things  in  the  seraion  which  appeared 
suspicious,  yet,  with  a  little  of  his  interpretative  and  explana- 
tory aid,  they  could  be  reconciled  with  orthodoxy.  But  the  all- 
powerful  argument  which  appeared  to  be  most  relied  upon,  if 
we  judge  from  its  frequent  reiteration,  was,  that  Mr.  Barnes  had 
the  confidence  of  many  excellent  men,  that  he  was  an  exem- 
plary Christian,  and  that  he  had  been  a  successful  preacher  of 
the  Gospel !  This  furnished  a  prolific  topic  for  declamation,  and 
the  understandings  of  the  Presbyters  were  forgotten  in  the  anx- 
iety to  af!ect  and  enlist  their  feelings.  A  persecuted  saint, 
assailed  in  his  character  and  impeded  in  his  career  of  useful- 
ness, was  a  picture,  it  would  seem,  too  affecting  for  ihe  judg- 
ment of  some  men  to  withstand.  Whether  such  appeals  were 
honourable  in  a  doctrinal  discussion  of  this  kind,  the  candid 
reader  is  left  to  decide.  But  this  was  not  all,  attempts  were 
made  to  overawe  the  minority.  They  were  told  that  the  world 
had  already  sounded  the  alarm  of  ecclesiastical  domination 
and  tyranny — that  the  discussion  was  doing  great  disservice 
to  the  cause  of  religion  in  the  community  at  large — that  pub- 
lic sentiment  was  too  enlightened  and  liberal  to  countenance 
such  inquisitorial  proceedings — that  the  call  in  question  was 
from  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  in  Philadelphia — and  that 
that  respectable  and  important  congregation  would  secede  if 
their  wish  was  denied,  and  last,  though  not  least,  for  its  pre- 
posterousness — that  the  First  Church  would  decline  any  future 
contributions  to  the  Board  of  Missions,  because  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Green  and  the  Rev.  Joshua  T.  Russell,  the  President  and  the 


(     10     ) 

General  Agent  of  that  Board,  were  members  of  the  minority!* 
Arguments  of  this  class,  however  they  might  indicate  the  po- 
licy, certainly  did  little  credit  to  the  understandings  of  those 
who  broached  them.  They  doubtless  produced  an  effect  upon 
some  minds  :  it  soon  became  apparent  that  there  was  a  popu- 
lar and  an  unpopular  side  to  the  question,  and  those  who  were 
unwilling  to  encounter  reproach,  and  submit  to  misrepresen- 
tation, had  their  resort. 

The  motion  was  at  length  put  to  the  house,  "  Shall  the  com- 
missioners have  leave  to  prosecute  the  call  9"  and  it  was  car- 
ried in  the  affirmative,  by  a  vote  of  twenty-one  to  twelve.  The 
minority  then  recorded  the  following  Protest,  and  the  Presby- 
tery adjourned. 

PROTEST. 

We,  the  minority  in  the  above  case,  do  hereby  protest 
against  the  foregoing  decision  for  the  reasons  following,  viz: 

The  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  the  person  to  whom  the  call  from 
the  Frist  Presbyterian  Church  was  directed,  in  a  Sermon 
preached,  and  lately  published  by  him  accompanied  by  notes, 
which  he  has  entitled  "  The  Way  of  Salvation,"  and  in  which 
he  professes  to  give  "the  leading  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  res- 
pecting God's  way  of  saving  men,"  has,  as  we  conceive,  broach- 
ed errors,  which  we,  as  guardians  of  the  purity  of  the  Church, 
cannot,  in  any  way,  countenance  ;  because  we  believe  them 
to  be  opposed  to  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  in  their  tendency,  exceedingly  dangerous  ;  as  will 
be  seen  from  ihe  following  particulars,  viz. 

1 .  It  is  believed  by  the  undersigned  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes 
has  denied  in  this  Sermon,  with  its  accompanying  notes,  the 
fundamental  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as  plainly  and  expressly 
taught  in  the  standards  of  our  Church.  So  far  from  admitting 
the  federal  and  representative  character  of  Adam,  and  our  res- 
ponsibility, in  him,  he  says  at  page  6,  "  Christianity  does  not 
charge  on  men  crimes  of  which  they  are  not  guilty.  It  does  not 
say,  as  I  suppose,  that  the  sinner  is  held  to  be  personally  answer- 
able for  the  transgressions  of  Adam  or  of  any  other  man,  or 
that  God  has  given  a  law  which  man  has  no  power  to  obey. 
Such  a  charge  and  such  a  requirement  would  be  most  clearly 
unjust.^'  And  again,  at  page  7,  he  says,  "  neither  the  facts, 
* 
*  We  had  regarded  this  as  an  idle  threat,  incautiously  uttered,  but  we 
have  since  learned  that  an  individual  of  that  congregation,  who  had  pledged 
himself  in  the  100  dollar  subscription,  has  since  declined  to  redeem  his 
pledge  ! 

Mr.  Russell,  from  his  former  associations,  was  well  qualified  to  engage 
in  this  debate,  and  expose  the  dangerous  speculations  of  the  new  school 
divinity.  This  he  did  with  much  force  and  ability,  and  this,  we  are  glad  to 
say,  he  continued  to  do,  although  reminded  that  a  calculating  fiolicy  would 
best  subserve  his  official  success  in  the  management  of  the  Assembly's  Mis- 
sions. 


(    n    ) 

nor  any  proper  inference  from  the  facts,  affirm  that  I  am  in 
either  case  personally  responsible  for  what  another  man  did 
before  I  had  an  existence."  Again,  in  the  same  page,  he  asserts, 
that  '^  the  notion  of  imputing  sin  is  an  inventio7i  of  modern 
times."  And  again,  in  the  same  page,  he  says,  "Christianity 
affirms  the  fact,  that  in  connexion  with  the  sin  of  Adam,  or  as  a 
result,  all  moral  agents  will  sin  and  sinning  will  die;"  and  then 
proceeds  to  say,  "  It  does  not  affirm,  however,  any  thing  about 
the  mode  in  which  this  would  be  done.  There  are  many  ways 
conceivable  in  which  that  sin  might  secure  the  result,  as  there 
are  many  ways  in  which  all  similar  facts  may  be  explained. 
The  drunkard  commonly  secures  as  a  result,  the  fact  that  his 
family  will  be  beggared,  illiterate,  perhaps  profane  or  intem- 
perate. Both  facts  arc  evidently  to  be  explained  on  the  same 
principle  as  a  part  of  moral  government."  Here,  it  is  conceived, 
the  author  of  the  Sermon  represents  the  effects  of  Adam's  fall 
upon  his  posterity  as  their  misfortune  and  not  as  their  sin.  And 
the  Protestants  do  further  consider  it  to  be  implied  in  the  state- 
ments of  the  Sermon,  that  infants  are  sinless  until  in  the  exer- 
cise of  moral  agency  they  do  positively,  by  their  own  act,  vio- 
late the  law.  Vide  Con.  of  Faith,  cap.  vi.  and  Catechism  Larger 
and  Shorter,  on  Art.  "  Original  Sin." 

2.  On  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  the  Protestants  believe 
that  Mr.  Barnes  maintains  sentiments  which  are  in  direct  con- 
tradiction to  those  set  forth  in  our  doctrinal  standards.  At  page 
1 1 ,  he  says,  "  This  atonement  was  for  all  men.  It  was  an  offer- 
ing made  for  the  race.  It  had  not  respect  so  much  to  indivi- 
duals as  to  the  law  and  perfections  of  God,  It  was  an  opening 
of  the  way  of  pardon,  a  making  forgiveness  consistent,  a  pre- 
serving of  truth,  a  magnifying  of  the  law,  and  had  no  particu- 
lar reference  to  any  class  of  men." 

Again,  at  page  11,  he  says,  "TAe  atonement  of  itself  secured 
the  salvation  of  no  one;"  and  again,  "The  atonement  secured 
the  salvation  of  no  one,  except  as  God  had  promised  his  Son 
that  he  should  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul,  and  except  on  the 
condition  of  repentance  and  faith."  Vide  Con.  of  Faith,  cap. 
viii.  5  and  B. 

Again,  at  page  10,  he  says  Christ  "  did  notendure  indeed  the 
penalty  of  the  law;"  and  again,  page  IJ,  lie  says,  "Christ's 
sufferings  were  severe,  more  severe  than  those  of  any  mortal 
before  or  since ;  but  they  bore,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  only  a  very 
distant  resemblance  to  the  pains  of  hell,  the  proper  penalty  of 
the  law.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  conceive  that  the  sufferings  of  a 
few  hours,  however  severe,  could  equal  pains,  though  far  less 
intense,  eternally  prolonged.  Still  less  that  the  sufferings  of 
human  nature,  in  a  single  instance,  for  the  divine  nature  could 
not  suffer,  should  be  equal  to  the  eternal  pain  of  many  mil- 
lions." Vide  Larger  Cat.  Q.  38. 

In  all  this  language  the  Protestants  do  sincerely  believe, 
that  Mr.  Barnes  denies  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  vicarious  sacri- 


(     12     ) 

fice — that  his  atonement  had  a  definite  design — that  it  was  in 
itself  efficacious — and  that  it  was  a  proper  satisfaction  to  divine 
justice  for  the  sins  of  his  elect. 

3.  In  this  Sermon,  the  Protestants  believe  that  Mr.  Barnes 
employs  language  on  the  subject  of  man's  ability,  which  is  con- 
trary to  the  standards  of  our  Church. 

In  speaking  of  sinners  rejecting  the  Gospel,  he  says,  page 
14,  "It  is  not  to  any  want  of  physical  strength,  that  this  rejec- 
tion is  owing,  for  men  have  power  enough  in  themselves  to  hate 
both  God  and  their  fellow  men,  and  it  requires  less  physical 
power  to  love  God  than  to  hate  him ;"  and  on  the  same  page, 
he  evidently  insinuates  that  man's  sole  inability  is  in  the  will, 
and  the  principal  effect  of  conversion  upon  the  will.     Again, 
page  30,  in  speaking  of  the  causes  which  exclude  a  sinner  from 
heaven,  he  says,  "  It  is  simply  because  you  will  not  be  saved.^^ 
The  Protestants  believe  that  to  ascribe  man's  inability  to  the 
will  alone,  is  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  our  Church.     Vide 
Con.  of  Faith,  cap.vi.  4. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  reasons  founded  on  the  doctri- 
nal errors  advanced  in  the  Sermon,  we  protest  also,  because, 

1.  In  the  forecited  Sermon,  professing  to  give  a  summary 
of  leading  doctrines  relating  to  man's  salvation,  no  mention 
whatever  is  made  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
through  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ,  a  defect,  which, 
under  the  circumstances,  cannot  well  be  accounted  for,  except 
on  the  supposition  that  it  was  not  received  by  the  author; 
and, 

2.  Because  the  author  of  the  Sermon  makes  certain  general 
declarations  which  induce  us  to  believe,  that  he  does  not  pro- 
perly regard  his  obligation  to  adhere  to  the  doctrinal  stan- 
dards of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Thus,  at  page  6,  he  says  in 
relation  to  one  of  his  statements,  "It  is  not  denied  that  this 
language  varies  from  the  statements  which  are  often  made  on 
this  subject,  and  from  the  opinion  which  has  been  entertained 
by  many.  And  it  is  admitted  that  it  does  not  accord  with  that 
used  on  the  same  subject  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  other 
standards  of  doctrine."  And,  again  at  page  12,  he  says,  "The 
great  principle  on  which  the  author  supposes  the  truths  of  re- 
ligion are  to  be  preached,  and  on  which  he  endeavours  to  act, 
is,  that  the  Bible  is  to  be  interpreted  by  all  the  honest  helps 
within  the  reach  of  the  preacher,  and  then  proclaimed  as  it  is, 
let  it  lead  where  it  will  within  or  without  the  circumference  of 
any  arrangement  of  doctrines.  He  is  supposed  to  be  responsi- 
ble not  at  all  for  its  impinging  on  any  theological  system ;  nor 
is  he  to  be  cramped  by  any  frame-work  of  faith  that  has  been 
reared  around  the  Bible." 

And  we  do  hereby  further  protest  against  the  forementioned 
decision,  because, 

1.  We  believe,  for  the  reasons  stated  above,  that  the  decision 


(     15     ) 

will  prove  injurious  to  the  purity  of  the  Church,  and  to  the 
best  interests  of  religion  :  and, 

2.  Because,  notwithstanding  it  had  been  decided  on  a  pre- 
vious question,  by  a  vote  of  37  to  10,  that  it  was  the  right  of 
Presbytery  in  examining  the  qualifications  of  their  own  mem- 
bers, to  bring  the  said  printed  Sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes  under 
review,  and  to  draw  thence  arguments  for  or  against  the  pro- 
secution of  the  call ;  yet  in  the  final  vote,  a  number  of  those 
who  voted  in  the  majority,  whilst  expressing  their  dissent  from 
Mr.  Barnes'  doctrines,  declared  that  they  were  guided  in  their 
vote,  by  the  consideration  that  Presbytery  had  no  right  to  in- 
quire into  INIr.  Barnes'  theological  views,  or  to  make  them  a 
ground  of  objection  to  the  prosecution  of  the  call. 

For  these  reasons  we  consider  it  our  solemn  duty  to  protest 
against  that  decision,  which  granted  leave  to  the  commissioners 
from  tile  First  Presbyterian  Clmrch  to  prosecute  a  call  for  the 
Rev.  Albert  Barnes  before  the  Presbytery  of  Elizabethtown. 
(Signed) 

Ministers. — Ashbel  Green,  George  C.  Potts,  John  Burtt, 
Joshua  T.  Russell,  Alvin  H.  Parker,  W.  L.  M'Calla,  William 
M.  Engles,  Charles  Williamson. 

Elders. — Andw.  Brown,  Jos.  P.  Engles,  James  Algeo, 
Moses  Pveed. 

A  special  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  was  held  on  the  1 8th  of 
June  following,  "  for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  subject  of 
the  reception  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes,  and  to  do  what  may  be 
deemed  proper  in  his  installation."     This  meeting  was  held  in 
the  Lecture  room  of  the  First  Church,  and  was  numerously  at- 
tended by  Presbyters  and  spectators.   The  indelicacy  of  aban- 
doning the  usual  place  of  meeting,  and  selecting  this  location, 
might  be  a  subject  of  just  comment ;  but  if  it  had  a  design  to 
influence,  it  totally  failed  ;  the  minority  neither  retracted  nor 
modified  their  ground.  The  following  extract  from  the  minutes 
of  Presbytery  will  show  how  the  business  was  introduced  at  this 
stage.  "  The  Rev.  Albert  Barnes  presented  a  certificate  of  dis- 
mission from  the  Presbytery  of  Elizabethtown  to  join  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Philadelphia.     The  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  at 
their  last  stated  meeting  in'  relation  to  the   case  of  the  Rev. 
Albert  Barnes,  were  then  read.  It  was  then  moved  and  second- 
ed, that  Mr.  Barnes  be  received  as  a  member  of  this  Presby- 
tery; and  after  some  discussion,  it  was  moved  (by  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Ely,)  and  seconded,  that  the  motion  now  under  considera- 
tion be  postponed,  that  before  deciding  on  it,  any  brother  of 
the  Presbytery  who  may  deem  it  necessary,  may  ask  of  the 
Rev.  Mr.   Barnes  such  explanations  of  his  doctrinal  views  as 
said  brethren  may  deem  necessary."     Here  the  question  de- 
termining the  right  of  a  Presbytery  to  examine  the  qualifica- 
tions of  those  proposing  to  become  members,  by  dismission 
from  a  co-ordinate  judicatory  was  brought  prominently  under 


(     14     ) 

debate,  although  it  had  been  virtually  decided  in  the  affirma- 
tive by  the  first  vote  of  the  Presbytery  at  their  April  sessions. 
The  right  was  strenuously  contended  for  on  the  one  side  as  one 
recognized  by  the  constitution;  as  clearly  ascertained  by  va- 
rious decisions  of  the  General  Assembly;  as  inherent  in  Pres- 
byteries as  radical  courts  ;  as  necessary,  as  a  safeguard  against 
the  rapid  spread  of  error;  and  as  essential  to  preserve  the 
proceedings  of  a  Presbytery  against  foreign  interference.  The, 
argument  on  the  other  side,  was  the  mere  and  confident  de- 
nial of  all  these  principles,  as  calculated  to  bring  Presbyteries 
into  conflict,  and  thus  to  interrupt  the  peace  of  the  Church. 
Strange  as  it  may  appear,  assertion  prevailed  over  demonstra- 
tion, and  the  right  of  Presbytery  to  examine  the  qualifications 
of  its  own  members,  was  denied,  by  a  vote  of  twenty  to  eigh- 
teen, twelve  ministers  voting  in  the  affirmative  and  twelve  in 
the  negative.  The  original  motion  for  Mr.  Barnes'  admission 
being  again  brought  under  consideration,  it  was  moved  by 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Engles,  that  the  motion  now  under  consideration 
be  postponed  with  a  view  to  take  up  the  following  : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  certificate  presented  to  this  Presbytery 
by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes,  from  the  Presbytery  of  Elizabethtown, 
be  sent  back  to  the  Presbytery  of  Elizabethtown,  with  an 
attested  copy  of  all  the  minutes  of  this  Presbytery  in  relation 
to  his  case,  with  a  request  that  the  said  Presbytery  will  consider 
and  decide  upon  those  doctrinal  sentiments  contained  in  a 
printed  sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes,  which  are  referred  to  in  a  Pro- 
test signed  by  a  minority  of  this  Presbytery,  and  which  are 
considered  as  grounds  of  objection  to  his  admission  into  this 
Presbytery." 

The  majority  had,  in  the  course  of  argument,  indicated  this 
as  the  proper  resort  of  the  minority,  but  now  feeling  themselves 
to  be  sufficiently  strong  to  carry  all  their  measures,  they  chang- 
ed their  views  and  negatived  the  motion.  The  debate  on  Mr. 
Barnes'  reception  was  then  commenced  anew. 

To  report  speeches  is  not  our  intention ;  but  we  cannot  refrain 
from  adverting  to  that  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  M'Calla,  as  an  able  and 
masterly  defence  of  orthodoxy,  in  opposition  to  the  spurious 
theology  of  New  England,  and  to  that  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Green, 
as  the  solemn  warning  of  the  sole  representative  of  the  fathers 
of  our  church,  now  fallen  asleep,  who,  having  observed  the  dis- 
astrous decline  of  the  once  glorious  churches  of  France,  Swit- 
zerland, and  Ireland,  could  not  suppresshisgrief  in  remarking 
on  the  present  occasion,  the  same  false  spirit  of  liberality  ;  the 
same  unbounded  latitude  of  interpretation,  and  the  same  unwil- 
lingness to  arrest  error  in  its  commencement  which  had  brought 
on  their  eclipse.  At  this  stage  of  the  business,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ely, 
who  had  strenuousFy  defended  the  right  of  Presbytery,  to  exa- 
mine Mr.  Barnes,  arose,  and  stated  that  he  purposed  to  vote 
for  the  reception  of  Mr.  Barnes,  because,  from  a  private  inter- 
view, he  was  convinced  of  his  general  orthodoxy,  in  proof  of 


(     15     ) 

which,  he  read  a  written  creed  prepared  by  himself,  and  adopt- 
ed and  signed  by  Mr.  Barnes.  This  was  a  proceeding,  in  our 
opinion  alike  discreditable  to  both  parties  ;  the  dignity  of  Mr. 
Barnes  was  compromised  in  submitting  to  have  his  views  ex- 
plained by  another,  when  he  was  so  earnestly  solicited  to  im- 
prove the  most  favourable  opportunity  of  doing  it  himself,  and 
the  dignity  of  Dr.  Ely  suflered  in  condescending  to  string  to- 
gether a  set  of  nicely  adjusted  phrases,  which,  however  ortho- 
dox their  aspect,  were  evidently  intended  to  cover  two  schemes 
of  totally  different  characters.*  It  is  with  reluctance  that  we 
advert  to  such  transactions,  but  we  wish  our  narrative  to  be 
recommended  by  its  truth.  The  vote  was  eventually  taken 
by  ayes  and  noes,  on  the  motion  for  receiving  Mr.  Barnes,  and 
decided  in  the  aflirmativc,  sixteen  ministers  and  fourteen  el- 
ders voting  in  the  affirmative,  and  nine  ministers  and  seven 
elders  in  the  negative. 

A  paper  was  then  presented  to  the  moderator,  containing 
charges  against  Mr.  Barnes,  for  his  unsoundness  in  the  faith 
and  in  arrest  of  his  installation.  The  moderator,  however,  de- 
cided it  to  be  out  of  order,  as  originating  a  new  business  at  a 
pro  re  nata  meeting.  Tiiis  opinion  was  appealed  from  by  Dr. 
Ely,  but  the  appeal  was  not  sustained.  He,  and  at  least  two 
others  of  the  majority,  contended  that  the  mere  announcement 
from  the  moderator  of  the  existence  of  such  a  paper  of  charges, 
was  a  sufficient  bar  to  the  installation,  and  yet  immediately 
afterwards,  they  surmounted  the  bar  and  voted  for  the  installa- 
tion, f  Strange  occurrences  take  place  in  over  anxiety  to  give 
success  to  a  favourite  measure,  and  these  sessions  of  the  Pres- 

*  It  is  true,  that  Mr.  Barnes  did,  on  one  occasion,  rise  and  promise  to 
make  some  explanations  of  his  doctrinal  views.  This  he  said  he  would  do 
voluntarily,  but  not  in  compliance  with  a  demand,  which  he  was  convinced 
Presbytery  had  no  right  to  make.  The  minority  were  pleased  with  the 
promise,  although  Mr.  Barnes  was  careful  to  represent  it  as  a  mere  conces- 
sion of  courtesy  ;  but  at  the  manner  in  which  he  fulfilled  it,  they  were  not 
only  disappointed  but  surprised.  It  is  doubtful  if  he  occupied  the  floor  {or Jive 
minutes,  and  in  that  time  explanations  could  not  have  been  expected,  much 
less  satisfactory  ones.  He  acknowledged,  it  is  true,  that  his  sermon  was 
defective,  through  oversight,  on  the  doctrine  of  justification,  (an  acknow- 
ledgment which  the  "  Sketch"  hcisforgollen  to  record,)  but  what  he  said  in 
brevity,  on  the  other  disputed  points,  only  tended  to  increase  the  suspicion, 
and  confirm  the  conviction  of  his  error,  in  the  minds  of  the  minority. 

f  Upon  the  presentation  of  this  paper  by  Mr.  Hoff,  (whose  manner  in  this 
whole  transaction  was  characterised  by  firmness  and  decision,)  a  curious 
scene  ensued.  The  moderator,  commendable  for  his  general  impartiality, 
decided  the  paper  to  be  out  of  order,  if  it  professed  to  be  a  copy  of  charges, 
but  to  be  in  order,  if  it  professed  to  be  a  bar  to  the  installation.  Now,  it  so 
happened,  that  it  came  under  both  these  professions,  and  hence  a  dilemma. 
The  majority,  however,  confirmed  the  decision  that  it  was  out  of  order,  and 
yet  determined  that  it  should  be  read.  Dr.  Ely,  Mr.  Biggs,  and  Mr.  Steel, 
professed  to  regard  the  paper,  before  it  was  read,  as  a  very  serious  obstacle 
to  the  installation  ;  but,  subsequently,  Mr.  Biggs  found  that  the  charges 
contained  no  new  matter ;  Dr.  Ely,  that  they  were  preferred  too  late ;  and 
Mr.  Steel  offered  no  ground  for  a  change  of  opinion,  and  they  were  even- 
tually found  united  in  the  vote  for  installation. 


(     16     ) 

bytery  have  been  prolific  of  such  occurrences.  It  was  decided 
by  regular  vote,  that  Mr.  Barnes'  doctrinal  errors  might  be  can- 
vassed, and  it  was  also  decided  that  they  might  not  be  can- 
vassed ;  it  was  maintained,  that  Mr.  Barnes  might  be  arraigned 
when  he  should  become  a  member  of  Presbytery,  and  it  was 
maintained  by  the  same  persons,  when  he  had  became  a  mem- 
ber, and  an  arraignment  was  attempted,  that  it  was  too  late  to 
arraign  him  for  acts  committed  in  another  Presbytery,  and  in 
the  full  knowledge  of  which  he  had  been  received  by  this  ; 
there  were  those  who  declared  themselves  to  be  of  the  old 
orthodox  school,  and  yet  were  willing  to  lend  their  influence  in 
promoting  the  interests  of  the  new  school,  which  is  any  thing 
but  orthodox;  it  was  maintained  by  the  same  person,  that  the 
same  sermon  contained  false  doctrine,  and  that  it  contained  no 
false  doctrine;  some  were  found  who  could  advocate  one  side 
of  a  cause  in  their  speeches,  and  advocate  the  opposite  side  by 
their  votes;  but  we  forbear;  our  only  comment  is,  that  truth  is 
beautifully  consistent  with  itself.  This  we  honestly  believe  to 
be  a  correct  narrative  of  the  proceedings  in  relation  to  the  case 
of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes,  and  it  has  been  extorted  from  us  by 
the  officious  zeal  of  those  who  have  attempted  to  pre-occupy 
the  public  attention  by  their  imperfect  and  garbled  sketch. 

Hostility  to  any  of  the  brethren  we  disclaim.  We  merely 
review  and  condemn  that  conduct  which  we  consider  repre- 
hensible in  them  as  Presbyters.  We  conscientiously  believe 
that  we  have  stated  the  truth,  and  we  are  willing  to  defend  it. 
If  there  must  be  controversy,  we  have  not  sought  it,  but,  ob- 
truded upon  us,  we  will  not  avoid  it. 

[  The  foregoing  narrative  was  published  as  a  measure  of 
self-defence,  before  the  litigated  question  had  been  referred  to 
the  consideration  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  ;  and  it  is  now 
republished,  for  the  purpose  of  presenting  under  one  view,  a 
full  and  consecutive  history  of  the  proceedings  in  this  caseJ] 

On  the  27th  of  October,  1830,  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia 
held  its  annual  sessions  in  the  city  of  Lancaster  ',  at  which 
time,  the  minority  solicited  the  exercise  of  their  jurisdiction  in 
the  above  mentioned  case,  by  laying  before  them  the  follow- 
ing 

COMPLAINT. 

The  undersigned,  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadel- 
phia, influenced  by  considerations  affecting  the  purity  and 
stability  of  the  Church,  feel  constrained  to  avail  themselves  of 
a  constitutional  provision,  in  making  their  complaint  to  the 
Revd.  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  of  certain  acts  and  proceedings 
in  the  before  mentioned  Presbytery,  which  have  been  deter- 
mined in  opposition  to  their  judgment,  and  which,  from  their 
importance,  require  the  review  of  a  superior  judicatory.     As 


(     17     ) 

a  succinct  history  of  the  proceedings  referred  to,  will  be  neces- 
sary to  a  proper  understanding  of  the  grounds  of  complaint, 
they  respectfully  solicit  the  attention  of  Synod  to  the  follow- 
ing recital. 

At  the  stated  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  in 
April  last,  commissioners  from  the  First  Presbyterian  Church 
in  Philadelphia,  presented  a  call  directed  to  the  Rev.  Albuert 
Barnes,  of  the  Presbytery  of  Elizabethtown.  In  relation  to 
this  call,  the  follovving  facts  were  brought  to  light,  viz:  That 
Mr.  Barnes  had  never  preached  as  a  candidate  for  this  congre- 
gation— that  but  fifty  voters,  out  of  more  than  two  hundred 
and  twenty,  had  sanctioned  it — that  there  was  an  important 
omission  in  it  of  these  words  in  the  prescribed  form,  "  and 
having  good  hopes,  from  our  past  experience  of  your  labours," 
whicii  express  a  fundamental  reason  upon  which  a  call  can  be 
properly  founded — and  finally,  that  Mr.  Barnes  had  been  called 
upon  the  testimony  of  a  small  delegation  who  had  heard  him 
preach,  and  upon  the  merits  of  a  sermon  which  he  had  pub- 
lished. These  facts,  in  the  opinion  of  some  members  of  the 
Presbytery,  seemed  to  indicate  the  propriety  of  caution  and 
hesitation  in  proceeding  to  ulterior  measures;  but  in  addition 
to  these  facts,  important  objections  to  the  prosecution  of  the 
call,  arose  from  the  nature  of  those  doctrines  which  Mr. 
Barnes  had  published  under  his  name,  in  the  sermon  entitled 
"The  Way  of  Salvation."  A  question  arose  on  the  propriety 
of  bringing  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Barnes  on  doctrinal  points 
under  review,  with  reference  to  the  prosecution  of  the  call. 
This  question  was  decided  affirmatively  by  a  large  majority, 
and  the  sermon  was  accordingly  read  and  canvassed.  In  the 
course  of  the  discussion,  the  objectionable  statemen-s  of  Mr. 
Barnes  in  this  sermon,  were  presented  in  detail,  and  in  the 
minds  of  many,  produced  not  merely  a  suspicion,  but  a  con- 
viction that  they  were  essential  deviations  from  that  system  of 
doctrines  set  forth  in  the  standards  of  our  Church.  The 
undersigned  were  conscious  that  they  had  no  sinister  end  to 
accomplish  in  the  candid  exposure  of  the  objectionable  doc- 
trines of  this  sermon,  and  that  so  far  from  cherishing  any  per- 
sonal feelings  of  hostility  to  Mr.  Barnes,  they  were  solely 
actuated  by  the  desire  of  guarding  the  purity  of  the  Church, 
with  faithfulness  and  vigilance.  They  listened  with  attention 
to  every  explanation  offered  in  mitigation  of  the  excepted 
phraseology  of  the  sermon,  and  they  anxiously  courted  such 
discussion  of  the  disputed  points,  as  would  have  fully  elicited 
the  truth.  But  they  are  now  under  the  necessity  of  complain- 
ing that  their  arguments  in  proof  of  Mr.  Barnes'  unsoundness 
in  the  faith,  were  summarily  set  aside,  upon  the  plea  that  his 
peculiar  theological  sentiments  could  not  be  at  that  time  a 
proper  subject  of  discussion,  although  the  right  of  such  dis- 
cussion had  already  been  fully  admitted  by  the  first  vote  of 
3 


(     18     ) 

the  Presbytery.  The  undersigned,  at  an  early  period  of  the 
debate  found  themselves  to  be  in  a  minority,  and  in  this  cha- 
racter they  felt  obliged  to  contend  earnestly  for  two  points : 
1st.  That  every  Presbytery  has  a  clearly  ascertained  right  of 
examining  the  qualifications  of  any  person  proposing  himself 
for  admission  into  their  body,  and  of  rejecting  his  application, 
if  his  qualifications  come  short  of  the  prescribed  standards; 
it  being  admitted,  that  the  exercise  of  this  right  is  in  every 
case  subject  to  the  review  of  the  superior  judicatories :  and 
2d.  That  the  doctrines  proclaimed  by  Mr.  Barnes  in  his  print- 
ed sermon,  upon  the  most  candid  examination,  were  found  to 
be  so  essentially  at  variance  with  those  of  our  standards,  as 
virtually  to  preclude  his  admission;  unless  it  could  be  ascer- 
tained that  the  intention  of  his  expressions  had  been  misun- 
derstood, or  that  he  had  disclaimed  the  sentiments  which  his 
language  seemed  to  convey.  In  urging  the  first  point,  the 
undersigned  adduced  various  arguments,  which  they  humbly 
conceive  were  not  satisfactorily  rebutted;  and  they  are  forced 
to  complain  that  the  Presbytery,  although  by  their  first  vote 
they  had  virtually  acknowledged  the  doctrine  for  which  they 
contended,  did  finally  deny  the  right  in  Presbyteries  of  ex- 
amining those  who  might  apply  for  admission.  In  urging  the 
second  point,  the  undersigned  are  conscious  of  no  undue  per- 
tinacity in  pursuing  their  object,  which  was  to  ascertain  if 
their  apprehensions  of  Mr.  Barnes'  want  of  orthodoxy  were 
justly  or  unjustly  entertained,  and  whether  his  doctrinal  views 
were  at  variance  or  coincident  with  the  Presbyterian  stan- 
dards. And  in  relation  to  this  point,  they  are  constrained  to 
complain,  that  their  honest  intentions  were  not  met  with  a 
spirit  of  brotherly  accommodation.  They  first  proposed  that 
they  should  have  permission  to  interrogate  Mr.  Barneson  those 
features  in  his  sermon  which  had  awakened  their  fears,  and 
which  are  enumerated  in  their  protest,  that  he  might  have  an 
opportunity  of  explaining  his  views,  and  if  possible,  of  remov- 
ing their  difficulties.  This  reasonable  request  was  denied. 
They  then  proposed,  if  there  was  any  doubt  on  the  question 
of  jurisdiction,  that  Mr.  Barnes  should  be  returned  with  his 
certificate  to  his  own  Presbytery,  with  a  respectful  request 
that  that  Presbytery  should  enter  into  the  proposed  inquiry. 
This  proposition  was  also  rejected.  They  then,  as  a  final 
measure,  after  the  reception  of  Mr.  Barnes,  offered  to  appear 
as  his  prosecutors  for  unsoundness  in  the  faith,  and  in  due 
form  presented  their  charges,  but  their  charges  were  not  per- 
mitted to  lie,  and  Mr.  Barnes  was  admitted  to  installation. 

It  is  not  the  intention  of  the  undersigned  to  enumerate  all 
the  minor  grounds  which  would  justify  complaint,  but  they  do 
most  earnestly  and  respectfully  solicit  the  Synod  to  redress 
them  in  what  they  consider  the  infringement  and  denial  of 
their  rights  as  Presbyters. 


(  19  ) 

As  the  question  involved  in  this  complaint  is  one  of  unpar- 
alleled importance,  and  as  the  decision  of  it  will  constitute  a 
precedent,  they  do  most  earnestly  entreat  the  Revd.  Synod  to 
give  it  a  prayerful  consideration,  and  in  their  wisdom  to 
determine  whether  the  grounds  of  complaint  be  not  just  and 
reasonable. 

Signed — Ministers — Ashbel  Green,  George  C.  Potts,  A.  H. 
Parker,  Joshua  T.  Russell,  William  M.  Engles,  Brogun  HofR 
Alexander  Boyd,  Charles  Williamson. 

Elders — Henry  M'Keen,  Joseph  P.  Engles,  Moses  Reed, 
Andrew  Brown,  James  Algeo. 

After  the  complaint  had  been  read,  it  was  submitted  to  the 
Judicial  Commiiiee,  who  reported  that  the  following  order  be 
observed  in  the  consideration  of  it  by  the  Synod  ;  viz.,  that 
all  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  relating  to 
the  case,  be  first  read;  that  the  complainants  be  then  heard  j 
that  the  Presbytery  be  heard  in  reply  ;  that  the  complainants, 
if  they  should  desire  it,  be  again  heard,  and  that  then,  the 
members  of  the  Presbytery  be  considered  as  withdrawn  from 
the  house,  and  that  the  whole  case  be  submitted  to  the  Synod 
for  their  deliberation  and  adjudication. 

This  order  of  proceeding  was  strictly  observed,  and  the  dis- 
cussion was  conducted  by  the  Synod  in  a  manner  peculiarly 
exhilirating  to  the  friends  of  truth,  and  peculiarly  honourable 
to  themselves.  With  a  few  exceptions,  no  quibbling  was  re- 
sorted to,  with  the  view  of  evading  the  points  in  dispute,  but 
the  question  was  met  in  its  length  and  in  its  breadth,  both  as 
it  involved  points  of  constitutional  law  and  points  of  doctrine. 
The  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  were  freely  canvassed;  the 
doctrines  of  the  sermon  freely  discussed ;  and  the  prevalence 
of  New  Haven  divinity  was  loudly  deplored  and  deprecated. 
In  the  course  of  this  debate,  much  ability  was  displayed,  and 
a  fearlessness  in  the  defence  of  a  decried  orthodoxy,  which 
we  trust  will  still  redeem  the  Church  from  the  errors  which 
threaten  to  engulph  it,  by  displacing  that  false  notion  of  com- 
promise, which  would  preserve  the  peace  of  the  Church  at  the 
expense  of  her  purity.* 

The  Synod  having  been  occupied  nearly  two  days  in  the  con- 
sideration of  this  subject,  came  to  the  following  decision,  viz. 

"  The  Synod,  having  considered  the  subject  of  the  com- 

*  Mr.  Barnes  himself,  read  before  the  Synod  an  elaborate  paper,  in  which, 
as  introductory,  he  complained  of  the  conduct  of  the  minority,  and  stated, 
that  he  had  entertained  serious  thoughts  of  subjecting  them  to  a  regular 
process!  The  paper  neither  retracted  nor  modified  the  exceptionable  fea- 
tures of  the  sermon;  but  was  rather  considered  as  their  defence.  It  was 
listened  to  with  much  attention,  but  the  effect  produced,  was  not  answera- 
ble to  the  expectation  with  which  it  was  prepared.  This  was  evident,  from 
the  tone  of  the  subsequent  discussion,  and  particularly  from  the  nature  of 
the  final  decision.  Indeed,  Mr.  Barnes'  professed  advocates  did  not,  it  is 
believed,  once  allude  to  it  as  a  satisfactory  exculpation. 


(     20     ) 

plaints  preferred  by  some  of  the  members  of  the  Presbytery 
of  Philadelphia,  relative  to  the  proceedings  of  said  Presby- 
tery, in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  A.  Barnes,  and  heard  the  parties 
in  the  case,  came  to  the  following  resolutions,  viz.  : 

1.  Resolved,  That  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  in  not 
allowing  the  examination  of  Mr.  Barnes,  in  connection  with 
his  printed  Sermon,  previously  to  his  reception  as  a  member 
of  Presbytery,  and  especially  before  his  installation  as  Pastor 
of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church,  gave  just  ground  of  com- 
plaint to  the  minority. 

2.  "jResoZverf,  That  the  complainants  be  referred  back  to  the 
Presbytery  of  which  they  are  members,  with  an  injunction  to 
that  Presbytery,  to  hear  and  decide  on  their  objections  to  the 
orthodoxy  of  the  sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes,  and  to  take  such  or- 
der on  the  whole  subject,  as  is  required  by  a  regard  to  the 
purity  of  the  Church,  and  its  acknowledged  doctrines  and 
order."  ^ 

On  the  adoption  of  the  first  resolution,  the  ayes  and  noes 
were  as  follows,  viz.: 

AvEs. — Messrs.  Martin,  Magraw,  White,  J.  Latta,  Gilbert, 
Douglass,  Love,  Morrison,  Breckenridge,  Hubbard,  Annan, 
Musgrave,  M'Conaughy,  Wilson,  Moody,  Sharon,  Jas.William- 
son,  Olmstead,  Fullerton,  M'Knight  Williamson,  Bryson,  J.  B. 
Patterson,  M.  B.  Patterson,  and  Smith,  Ministers;  and 
Messrs.  Stanley,  Patterson,  Lefevre,  Schell,  Welsh,  and  Gab- 
by, Elders. 

Noes. — Messrs.  Dickey,  Barr,  Dickinson,  Kennedy,  Duf- 
field,  and  De  Witt,  Ministers ;  and  Messrs.  Kirkpatrick  and 
Slaymaker,  Elders. 

On  the  adoption  of  the  second  resolution,  the  ayes  and  noes 
were  as  follows,  viz.  : 

Ayes. — Messrs.  Martin,  Magraw,  White,  J.  Latta,  Doug- 
lass, Love,  Breckenridge,  Hubbard,  Annan,  Musgrave,  M'Co- 
naughy, Wilson,  Moody,  Sharon,  James  Williamson,  Olm- 
stead, Fullerton,  M'Knight  Williamson,  Bryson,  J.  B.  Patter- 
son, M.  B.  Patterson,  and  Smith,  Ministers;  and  Messrs. 
Stanley,  Patterson,  Lefevre,  Schell,  Welsh,  and  Gabby,  El- 
ders. 

Noes. — Messrs.  Dickey,  Gilbert,  Barr,  Morrison,  Dickin- 
son, Kennedy,  Duffield,  and  De  Witt,  Ministers ;  and  Messrs. 
Slaymaker  and  Kirkpatrick,  Elders. 

It  need  not  be  said  that  this  decision,  obtained  by  so  large 
a  majority,  was  extremely  gratifying  to  the  complainants  ;  it 
embraced  the  full  amount  of  their  request,  and  effectually 
redressed  them,  by  distinctly  recognizing  the  constitutional 
right,  for  which  they  had  so  earnestly  contended,  but  of  the 
exercise  of  which,  they  had  been  unjustly  deprived.  It  should 
be  recollected  that  on  this  question  the  members  of  the  Phi- 
ladelphia Presbytery  had  no  vote,  and  consequently  it  was 


(     21     ) 

decided  by  those,  who,  having  had  no  share  in  the  previous 
debates,  were  most  likely  to  be  impartial  and  unbiassed 
judges.  From  this  decision,  no  appeal  was  taken  to  the  high- 
est judicatory  of  the  Church.  'The  reasons  which  dictated 
this  course,  although  left  to  conjecture  for  a  time,  were  fully 
developed  by  subsequent  events. 

The  Synod  did  not  adjourn  until  Monday  at  2  o'clock,  P.  M. 
and  it  so  occurred  that  the  Philadelphia  Presbytery  had  an 
adjourned  meeting  on  the  following  day,  at  3  o'clock,  P.  M. 
to  attend  to  an  item  of  unfinished  business.  Little  imagining 
that  any  measures  would  be  urged  at  that  meeting  in  relation 
to  the  decision  of  Synod,  the  complainants  used  no  particular 
expedition  in  iiastening  to  Philadelphia  ;  and,  indeed,  circum- 
stances rendered  it  utterly  impracticable  for  most  of  them  to 
have  arrived  in  season  for  the  meeting  of  Presbytery,  and, 
accordingly,  but  three  of  them  were  present.  At  this  meeting 
many  of  the  majority  were  present,  and  several  of  them  were 
attended  by  their  Elders.  It  was,  from  the  first,  evident  that 
such  zeal  in  the  array  offeree,  was  the  precursor  of  some  inte- 
resting measure.  In  due  time  it  was  developed  in  the  form 
of  a  motion  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ely,  which  was  in  these  words, 
viz  : — "  Moved,  that  in  consequence  of  the  minute  and  order 
of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  this  day  reported  to  this  Pres- 
bytery, and  above  recorded,  the  Presbytery  will  now  proceed 
to  take  up  and  consider  the  charges  which  were  presented 
against  the  Rev.  A.  Barnes,  on  the  23d  day  of  June  last,  and 
which  were  signed  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ashbel  Green  and  others." 
The  mover  prefaced  his  motion  by  some  strong  remarks  tend- 
ing to  show  that  the  signers  of  that  paper,  were  absolutely 
obliged  to  prosecute  their  charges,  and  that,  as  accusers,  they 
would  be  excluded  from  voting  on  the  final  decision.  This 
master-stroke  of  policy  was  in  eflect  saying,  "  since  the  Synod 
constrain  us  to  investigate  the  orthodoxy  of  Mr.  Barnes'  Ser- 
mon, the  arrangement  shall  so  be  made,  as  to  exclude  the 
complainants  from  any  voice  in  the  proceeding."  Notwith- 
standing this  motion  was  pronounced  to  be  out  of  order  by 
the  Moderator,  (the  Rev.  Mr.  Russell)  as  it  contemplated 
charges  which  had  no  existence,  it  was  carried ;  and  it  was 
subsequently  resolved  that  the  charges  be  read,  and  as  they 
did  not  appear,  the  stated  Clerk  was  directed  to  furnish  them 
at  the  next  meeting.  The  light  in  which  this  strange  proceed- 
ing was  regarded  by  the  minority,  will  best  appear  from  the 
following  protest  which  was  entered  upon  the  minutes. 

PROTEST. 

We  the  undersigned  do  hereby  protest  against  the  resolution 
offered  by  Dr.  Ely,  and  adopted  by  this  Presbytery,  and  which 
is  recorded  above,  for  the  following  reasons,  viz. 

1.  Because  it  was  proposed  at  a  time  when  but  two  members 


(     22      ) 

of  the  minority,  (excepting  the  Moderator)  so  deeply  concern- 
ed in  it,  were  present,  and  when  it  must  have  been  known  to 
the  mover,  that  the  remaining  members  of  the  minority  had  not 
yet  returned  from  the  meeting  of  Synod. 

2.  Because  the  attempt  to  press  such  a  measure  at  an  ad- 
journed meeting,  without  having  first  apprised  the  minority 
who  were  absent  and  entirely  unsuspicious  ofsuch  a  design,  was 
assuming  an  unfair  advantage. 

3.  Because  the  resolution  was  intended,  as  expressed  by  the 
mover,  to  constrain  the  minority  to  appear  as  accusers,  and 
thus  deprive  them  of  their  right  to  vote  in  the  case. 

4.  Because  the  resolution  proceeds  upon  a  false  presumption, 
that  a  certain  paper  of  charges  existed  as  the  property  of  this 
Presbytery,  when  it  is  matter  of  record,  that  said  paper,  when 
presented  was  pronounced  to  be  out  of  order,  and  was  not  there- 
fore considered  as  before  the  Presbytery;  and  when  this  Presby- 
tery evidently  regarded  it  as  having  no  existence,  by  refraining 
from  passing  any  vote  for  its  acceptance  ;  by  omitting  to  take 
those  previous  steps  which  are  rendered  obligatory  by  the  book 
of  discipline  when  charges  are  first  presented  against  a  Bishop, 
and  especially,  by  their  proceeding  immediately  to  take  mea- 
sures for  Mr.  Barnes'  installation,  which  would  not  have  been 
done  had  he  been  under  process. 

5.  Because  the  resolution  takes  for  granted  that  that  paper 
was  of  a  certain  tenor  and  was  signed  by  Dr.  Ashbel  Green 
and  others,  when  the  assumed  facts  were  never  before  this  Pres- 
bytery in  a  formal  and  regular  way,  and  could  not  therefore  be 
a  proper  ground  of  proceeding. 

6.  Because  the  course  proposed  by  the  resolution,  besides 
being  based  upon  a  false  presumption,  is  directly  opposed  to 
the  recent  determination  of  Synod,  which  provides  that  the 
minority  should  present  their  objections  to  the  orthodoxy  of 
Mr.  Barnes'  sermon,  and  that  the  Presbytery  should  then  hear 
and  decide  upon  the  validity  of  these  objections  ;  thus  evident- 
ly putting  it  into  the  power  of  the  minority,  and  not  of  the 
Presbytery,  to  commence  proceedings  in  the  case  and  to  pre- 
scribe the  particular  course.     (Signed) 

WM.  M.  ENGLES. 
GEORGE  C.  POTTS. 

The  Presbytery  met  on  the  30th  of  November  following,  in 
the  Session  Room  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church,  at  the 
call  of  the  moderator,  for  the  express  purpose  of  acting  on  the 
resolutions  of  Synod  before  recorded.  This  meeting  was  nu- 
merously attended,  there  being  present  thirty-five  ministers 
and  twenty-four  elders.  It  soon  became  manifest  that  those 
who  had  been  in  the  minority  in  the  previous  stages  of  this 
business,  had  now  become  the  majority,  and  it  will  be  recol- 
lected that  in  the  subsequent  use  of  these  terms,  the  majority 


(     23     ) 

represent  those  who  opposed  the  errors  of  Mr.  Barnes'  sermon, 
and  the  minority,  his  friends  and  supporters. 

The  business  was  then  introduced  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Green, 
who  presented  a  long  minute  in  the  form  of  a  resolution,  with 
a  view  of  directing  the  discussion  which  was  about  to  take 
place,  and  of  giving  system  and  order  to  the  proceedings.* 
When  this  motion  was  seconded,  a  course  of  opposition  was 
commenced  by  the  minority,  with  Dr.  Ely  as  their  leader, 
which  perhaps  is  unparalleled  in  the  annals  of  ecclesiastical 
proceedings,  and  the  sole  intention  of  which  appeared  to  be 
to  delay  and  to  embarrass. 

"  Dr.  Ely  moved  to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the  minute 
offered  by  Dr.  Green,  that  Presbytery  may  call  upon  the  Stated 
Clerk  for  the  charges  against  Mr.  Barnes,  which  he  was  re- 
quired to  produce  at  the  last  meeting  of  the  Presbytery." 

It  was  considered  by  the  Presbytery  tiiat  there  were  no  such 
charges  as  those  alluded  to  in  the  motion,  as  appeared  from 
the  reasons  stated  in  the  Protest;  and  that  the  Synod,  in  the 
instructions  and  directions  which  it  had  given  to  the  Presby- 
tery, had  never  contemplated  the  revival  and  prosecution  of 
any  such  charges. 

The  motion  of  Dr.  Ely  was  then  put  to  the  house  and  lost. 
The  Dr.  not  deterred  by  his  defeat  was  prepared  for  a  second 
assault.  He  moved  the  postponement  of  Dr.  Green's  motion, 
with  a  view  to  take  up  the  following,  viz.: 

"  Resolved,  That  this  Presbytery  cannot  entertain  and  act 
upon  the  paper  introduced  by  Dr.  Green,  because  it  is  virtually 
an  indictment  of  Mr.  Barnes  for  heresy,  until  some  persons  ap- 
pear as  accusers." 

In  this  also  he  was  defeated,  but,  nothing  daunted,  he  pre- 
sented his  third  attack  in  the  following  form,  viz.: 

"  Resolved,  That  this  Presbytery  cannot  constitutionally  and 
judicially  hear  any  objections  against  the  orthodoxy  of  any 
sermon  preached  and  published  by  Mr.  Barnes,  until  some 
persons  appear  as  his  accusers;  or  until  the  Presbytery  shall 
judge  that  common  fame  requires  him  to  be  arraigned  for  he- 
resy." 

And  in  this  also  he  was  defeated.  These  several  resolutions 
were  pronounced  by  the  Moderator  to  be  disorderly,  as  being 
mere  repetitions,  which  improperly  occupied  the  time  of  the 
Presbytery,  in  urging  a  course  of  proceeding  against  which 
they  had  already  decided.  Thrice  was  an  appeal  taken  from 
the  Moderator's  decision  by  Dr.  Ely,  and  thrice  was  his  appeal 
negatived.  How  many  motions  of  a  similar  tenor  and  of  simi- 
lar intention,  were  held  in  reserve  by  the  mover  is  not  known  ; 

*  This  minute,  which  was  finally  adopted,  as  expressive  of  the  sense  of 
the  Presbytery  on  the  doctrinal  errors  of  Mr.  Barnes'  sermon,  is  inserted  in 
a  subsequent  part  of  this  narrative. 


(     24     ) 

although  it  is  believed  he  had  several ;  but  as  much  time  had 
been  already  uselessly  expended,  and  the  patience  of  the  house 
was  nearly  exhausted,  it  was  thought  expedient,  to  adopt  some 
plan  to  arrest  the  course  which  the  minority  had  thought  pro- 
per to  pursue.  This  was  effected  by  a  motion  from  Mr.  Engles 
to  this  effect:  that  the  motion  of  Dr.  Green  be  postponed  with 
a  view  to  take  up  the  following  viz.: 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Presbytery  do  now  proceed  to  hear  the 
objections  which  may  be  urged  against  the  Sermon  of  Mr. 
Barnes,  agreeably  to  the  decision  of  Synod,  making  the  minute 
offered  by  Dr.  Green  the  basis  upon  which  the  proceeding 
shall  be  conducted." 

Dr.  Ely  finding  that  he  could  not  postpone  a  postponement, 
and  that  the  last  motion  precluded  the  repetition  of  useless 
and  thrice  defeated  motions,  then  rose,  and  by  permission  of 
Presbytery,  read  the  following 

PROTEST. 

The  undersigned  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadel- 
phia, do  hereby  protest, 

I.  Against  the  decision  of  this  body,  yesterday,  that  they 
would  not  postpone  the  consideration  of  the  minute  moved  by 
Dr.  Green,  for  the  purpose  of  calling  upon  the  Stated  Clerk 
for  the  charges  against  Mr.  Barnes,  which  he  was  required  to 
produce  at  the  last  meeting  of  Presbytery,  for  the  following 
reasons,  viz:  1.  Charges,  against  the  orthodoxy  of  Mr.  Barnes 
were  publicly  handed  to  the  Moderator  of  this  Presbytery  on 
the  23d  of  June  last,  and  were  read  by  order  of  this  Presby- 
tery ;  and  although  those  charges  were  then  decided  to  be  out 
of  order  at  a  special  meeting  as  the  commencement  of  a  trial; 
yet  it  will  not  follow  that  it  is  out  of  order  now  to  consider 
and  dispose  of  them  in  a  constitutional  way;  at  a  meeting  of 
Presbytery  specially  called,  among  other  things,  "  to  take  such 
order  on  the  whole  subject,  as  is  required  by  a  regard  to  the 
purity  of  the  Church,  and  its  acknowledged  doctrines  and 
order."  2.  These  charges  having  been  read,  this  Presbytery 
gave  no  leave  to  any  one  to  withdraw  them  from  their  files. 
3.  The  complainants  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  among 
other  alleged  grievances,  complained,  that  they  "in  due  form 
presented  their  charges,  but  their  charges  were  not  permitted 
to  lie  :"  from  which  it  would  seem  proper  that  this  Presbytery 
should  now  formally  consider  and  dispose  of  those  charges, 
that  this  ground  of  complaint  and  grievance  may  no  longer 
exist.  4.  These  charges  were  calculated  vitally  to  affect  the 
ministerial  character  and  standing  of  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes, 
and  therefore  ought  not  to  be  left  noted  on  our  records,  without 
some  final  adjudication  in  relation  to  them.  5.  The  persons 
who  signed  and  preferred  those  charges  ought  still,  agreeably 
to  our  Constitution,  to  be  held  as  accusers ;  and  therefore  it 


(     25     ) 

was  important  to  consider  and  act  upon  them,  that  the  charges 
being  disposed  of,  their  responsibility  as  accusers  might  then 
cease.  6.  This  Presbytery,  on  the  2d  of  November  last,  re- 
solved to  take  up  and  consider  those  charges;  and  it  would 
have  been  most  consistent  with  order  to  have  called  for  them 
accordingly. 

II.  The  undersigned  also  protest  against  the  decision  of 
this  Presbytery  yesterday,  ]^  whicli  Presbytery  decided  Dr. 
Ely's  second  motion  to  be  out  of  order;  because  Presbytery 
has  thereby  virtually  said  that  they  can  constitutionally  and 
judicially  hear  objections  against  the  orthodoxy  of  one  of 
their  own  members,  when  no  persons  appear  as  his  accusers; 
and  when  common  fame  does  not  render  process  against  him 
necessary;  which  is  manifestly  in  opposition  to  our  book  of 
discipline,  which  says,  "Process  against  a  gospel  minister 
shall  not  be  commenced,  unless  some  person  or  persons  under- 
take to  make  out  the  charge ;  or  unless  common  fame  so 
loudly  proclaims  the  scandal,  that  the  Presbytery  find  it  ne- 
cessary for  the  honor  of  religion,  to  investigate  the  charge." 

III.  Finally  the  undersigned  protest  against  the  decision  to 
take  wp,  consider,  and  act  on,  the  paper  submitted  by  Dr. 
Green  yesterday,  because  it  is  really  the  commencement  of  a 
process  against  Mr.  Barnes  in  an  unconstitutional  way  ;  be- 
cause it  contains  numerous  impeachments  of  his  orthodoxy, 
and  proposes  various  censures  to  be  inflicted  on  him;  and  be- 
cause it  is  the  apparent  design  of  the  whole  paper  proposed 
as  a  minute,  to  allow  all  who  have  heretofore  accused  Mr. 
Barnes  to  act  the  part  of  judges  in  a  case  in  which  they  are 
accusers ;  and  thus  unlawfully  expose  him  to  suspension  or 
deposition. 

For  the  foregoing  reasons,  the  undersigned  feel  constrained 
to  declare,  that  if  their  brethren  will  proceed  in  the  present 
unconstitutional  manner  to  try  their  own  objections  to  Mr. 
Barnes'  orthodoxy  ,the  undersigned  must  withdraw  from  all  par- 
ticipation in  such  proceedings;  and  complain  to  the  next  Gene- 
ral Assembly. 

Philadelphia,  Dec.  1,  1830. 

Ministers. — Ezra  Stiles  Ely,  Tho.  H.  Skinner,  C.  Hoover, 
William  Bacon,  A.  H.  Dashiell,  Jas.  Patterson,  John  L.  Grant, 
Jno.  W.  Scott,  Thomas  Eustace,  George  Chandler,  Tho.  J. 
Biggs,  Albert  Barnes,-  John  Smith,  Thos.  M'Auley,  Jos.  San- 
ford. 

Elders. — Ambrose  White,  Samuel  Withington,  William 
Darling,  Thos.  D.  Mitchell,  Jonathan  Roberts,  Alexr.  J.  Dallas, 
D.  H.  Mason,  Isaac  Will,  John  O'Neil. 

December,  2,  1830. 

The  subscriber  unites  in  the  two  last  grounds  of  protest,  but 
not  on  the  first  with  the  protestants  before  named. 

R.  B.  BELVILLE. 
4 


(     26     ) 

In  the  distorted  statement  furnished  by  the  Editor  of  the 
Philadelphian,  Dr.  Ely  is  represented  (and  Dr.  Ely  is  here  his 
own  reporter)  as  contemptuously  presenting  the  Presbytery 
"  a  loio  boiv"  for  the  favour  they  had  granted,  in  permit- 
ting him  to  read  his  Protest.  Other  acts  equally  characteris- 
tic of  his  decorum,  throughout  these  debates  might  be  men- 
tioned, although  they  have  no  niche  in  the  Philadelphian.  His 
sneering  designation  of  the  Clerk  of  the  Presbytery  as  an  in- 
stance, will  doubtless  be  remenlfcered  by  many  as  a  satisfac- 
tory evidence  of  urtsoured  temper. 

Dr.  Green  and  Mr.  Engles,  who  were  appointed  a  Commit- 
the  for  that  purpose,  prepared  the  following  answer  to  the 
Protest  of  Dr.  Ely  and  others. 

Answer  to  the  Protest  signed  by  the  Rev.  Ezra  Stiles  Ely^  and 

others. 

This  Protest,  in  its  several  divisions  and  subdivisions,  ap- 
pears to  rest  altogether  on  a  single  principle,  and  that  a  false 
one;  namely,  that  there  is  no  constitutional  method  of  cor- 
recting doctrinal  error  in  the  ministers  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  but  by  immediately  instituting  a  regular  process 
against  them  for  heresy.  Or  it  may  be  expressed  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Protest  itself.  In  Division  II.  the  Protestants 
declare  that  they  "  protest  against  the  decision  of  yesterday, 
by  which  Presbytery  decided  Dr.  Ely's  second  motion  to  be 
out  of  order  ;  because  Presbytery  has  thereby  virtually  said, 
that  they  can  constitutionally  and  judicially  hear  objections 
against  the  orthodoxy  of  one  of  their  own  members,  when  no 
persons  appear  as  his  accusers  ;  and  when  common  fame  does 
not  render  process  against  him  necessary;  which  is  manifestly 
in  opposition  to  our  book  of  discipline,  vvliich  says,  'Process 
against  a  Gospel  minister,  shall  not  be  commenced  unless 
sonxe  person  or  persons  undertake  to  make  out  the  charge ;  or 
unless  common  fame  so  loudly  proclaims  the  scandal,  that  the 
Presbytery  find  it  necessary,  for  the  honour  of  religion,  to  in- 
vestigate the  charge.'  "  There  is  inherent  evidence,  even  in 
this  quotation,  which  speaks  of  "common  fame,  loudly  pro- 
claiming a  scandal ;"  that  gross  immoralities  were  in  contem- 
plation, when  this  article  of  our  constitution  was  penned  and 
adopted  :  and  by  reference  to  the  chapter  where  it  is  found 
(chap.  V.  on  discipline)  it  will  abundantly  appear,  that  the 
framers  of  the  constitution  considered  flagrant  immoralities 
(with  which  Presbytery  never  intimated  an  intention  of  charg- 
ing Mr.  Barnes)  as  the  principal  subjects  of  regular  process. 
Of  seventeen  sections  of  which  that  chapter  is  composed, 
there  is  in  the  first  twelve,  but  one  allusion,  and  that  merely 
incidental,  to  any  thing  relative  to  doctrines.  The  whole 
manifestly  refers  to  personal  and  practical  immoralities.  There 


(     27      ) 

is  no  question,  it  is  admitted,  that  doctrinal  error  may,  by  the 
constitution,  be  made  the  subject  of  regular  process.     Yet  it 
siiould  be  constantly  kept  in  view,  that,  at  least  in  most  cases, 
error  should  be   both   extreme   and   palpable,   and   threaten- 
ing to  spread  to  the  injury  of  the  church,  or  to  become  invete- 
rate in  him  who  holds  it,  before  it  ought,  according  to  the  con- 
stitution, to  be  made  the  subject  of  regular  process.   For  when, 
in  the  chapter  referred  to,  the  subject  of  doctrinal  error  is,  at 
sec.  13,  distinctly  introduced,  it  is  spoken  of  as  "Heresy  and 
Schism,"  and   is   immediately   followed   with  a    caution   that 
errors  less  dangerous  than  those  included  under  these  terms, 
should  be  more  tenderly  dealt  with;  and  the  two  following  sec- 
tions are  wholly  employed  in  enjoining  kindness,  and  direct- 
ing how  it  should  be  exercised — and  this  even  after  charges 
have  been  preferred,  and  a  regular  process  commenced.  Now 
the  minute  proposed  by  Dr.  Green,  against  which  this  Protest 
is   directed    as   unconstitutional,   contemplated   a   far  milder 
course  than  that  of  charges  and  a  regular  process.   It,  indeed, 
specifies  errors  of  very  dangerous  import.     But  the  mover 
explicitly  declared,  when  he  introduced  the  minute  by  a  mo- 
lion,  that  he  submitted  it  merely  as  a  basis  for  the  examination 
of  the  sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes;  that  he  vvould  not  pledge  him- 
self to  vote  for  a  single  article  it  contained;  that  he  hoped 
and  trusted  that  the  Presbytery  would  modify  it,  in  every  par- 
ticular in  which  it  should  be  found  erroneous,  and  even  reject 
the  whole,  if  they  should  find  it  wronger  inexpedient  to  adopt 
it.     He  professed  himself  to  be  open  to  conviction  if  he  had 
erred,  or  put  a  wrong  construction  on  any  part  of  Mr.  Barnes' 
sermon;  and  he  emphatically  and  repeatedly  declared,  that  it 
was  his  earnest  wish  and  hope,  that  Mr.  Barnes  and  his  friends 
should  be  fully  and  candidly  heard,  on  every  specification  of 
what  was  deemed  erroneous  in  his  sermon  ;  and  the  same  was 
the  declared  understanding  of  all  who  spoke  on  the  same  side 
of  the  question.     The  mover  of  the  minute,  and  the  most  of 
those  who  advocated  it,  went  so  far  as  even  to  give  their  suf- 
frages that   Mr.  Barnes  should  be  allowed,  not  only  to  speak 
fully  and  freely,  but  also  to  vote,  on  every  question  affecting 
the  orthodoxy  of  his  sermon.     Yet  this  lenient  and  kind  pro- 
cedure is  pronounced  to  be  unconstitutional  by  the  Protest; 
and  the  same  was  often  declared,  and   much  insisted  on,  by 
the  Protestants  in  debate.   It  is  confidently  believed,  however, 
that  the  constitution  of  our  church  does  authorize  and  approve 
of  such  mild  and  cautious  proceedings,  for  the  correction  of 
doctrinal  error — proceedings  other  than  those  of  regular  pro- 
cess, founded  on  charges  to  be  formally  sustained  by  accusers, 
or  taken  up  on  the  report  of  common  fame.  It  is  believed,  that 
precisely  such  a  proceeding  as  the  minute  exhibits,  and  against 
which  the  Protest  is  directed,  is  entirely  within  the  meaning  of 
an  express  constitutional  provision.   In  chap.  X.  sec.  8,  of  the 


C     28     ) 

Form  of  Government,  the  powers  and  duties  of  Presbyteries 
are  distinctly  specified;  and  a  part  of  these  is  declared  to  be, 
"  to  resolve  questions  of  doctrine  or  discipline,  seasonably  and 
reasonably  proposed,  and  to  condemn  erroneous  opinions, 
which  injure  the  purity  or  peace  of  the  church."  It  is  impor- 
tant to  observe  that  this  ?povver,  and  duty  too,  of  resolving 
questions  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  and  of  condemning  erro- 
neous opinions,  pertains  alike  to  every  judicature  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  above  that  of  the  Church  Session — alike  to 
Presbyteries,  Synods,  and  the  General  Assembly.  Of  the  ex- 
ercise of  this  power,  and  the  performance  of  this  duty,  by  the 
General  Assembly,  there  are,  on  the  records  of  that  supreme 
judicature  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  three  memorable  in- 
stances, or  cases — those  of  Balch,  Davis,  and  Craighead.  It 
affects  not  the  constitutional  principle,  that  these  cases  were 
brought  before  the  Assembly  by  reference  from  inferior  judi- 
catures. It  is  clear,  that  there  were  before  the  Assembly, 
neither  responsible  accusers  nor  any  thing  like  regular  pro- 
cess. The  questions  to  be  decided  related  to  the  doctrinal 
opinions  or  teachings,  publicly  inculcated  by  certain  indivi- 
duals; and  they  might  have  been  taken  up,  on  the  overture  of 
any  member,  or  any  number  of  members  of  the  Assembly,  as 
well  as  in  any  other  way.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  denied,  that 
it  is  a  constituiional  principle  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
sanctioned  by  the  supreme  judicature  of  that  church,  that 
Presbyteries,  Synods,  and  General  Assemblies,  may  give  their 
opinion  on  the  doctrinal  character  of  any  sermon,  book,  or 
other  publication,  whenever  they  may  deem  it  expedient,  and 
for  the  good  of  the  church,  to  do  so;  and  that  in  doing  this,  it 
is  not  necessary  that  there  should  be  formal  charges  and  res- 
ponsible accusers,  or  the  report  of  common  fame;  but  that  it 
may  be  done  on  a  motion  for  the  purpose,  by  any  member 
of  the  judicature,  and  generally  ought  to  be  done,  when  it 
is  requested  by  a  considerable  number  of  members. 

Now  the  minute  proposed  by  Dr.  Green,  was  offered  in  strict 
conformity  with  this  constitutional  principle.  It  was  otTered 
solely,  as  he  distinctly  avowed,  as  a  motion — a  motion  for  ex- 
amining and  deciding  on  the  doctrinal  statements  of  the  pub- 
lished sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes,  entitled  "The  Way  of  Salva- 
tion." The  specified  contrarieties  of  the  sermon  to  the  doctri- 
nal standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  were  stated  affirma- 
tively ;  and  it  was  proper  that  they  should  be  so  stated,  because 
the  mover  had  been  one  of  the  complainants  to  Synod,  in  re- 
gard to  measures  touching  this  sermon,  and  the  Synod  had  en- 
joined it  on  the  Presbytery  •'  to  hear  the  objections  of  the  com- 
plainants," and  this  proposed  minute  was  a  distinct  statement 
of  those  objections.  But  the  mover  repeatedly  and  earnestly 
declared,  that  it  was  his  wish  that  these  objections  should  be 
regarded  and  treated  as  subjects  of  candid  discussion,  and 


(     29     ) 

friendly  ae.-j,^rj^tion,  go  that  if  the  errors  alleged  were  not 
found  to  exist,  an  ^^i,se  of  uneasiness  njight  be  removed  ;  if 
errors  did  exist,  but  w^^  mao'niiied  or  overstated,  that  the 
statement  might  be  correcteo  «>°  modified  ;  or  if  the  errors  were 
found  to  exist,  as  stated  in  the  ni^nte,  the  proper  course  of 
procedure  with  the  erring  member  might  lie  considered  :  and 
this  was  in  fact  the  course  which  the  Presbytery  pursued  —so  far 
as  it  could  be  done,  after  the  protestants  refused  to  take  any 
part  of  the  discussion  of  the  doctrinal  points  of  Mr.  Barnes' 
sermon. 

The  Presbytery  feel  it  to  be  their  sacred  duty  on  this  occa- 
sion to  remark,  that  if  "erroneous  opinions  which  injure  the 
purity  and  peace  of  the  church,"  could  not  be  "  condemned" 
and  corrected,  in  any  other  way  than  by  the  institution  of  a 
regular  process  conducted  by  accusers,  or  taken  up  on  common 
fame,  the  purity  and  peace  of  the  church  would  be  put  in  ex- 
treme jeopardy.     Not  only  is  the  conducting  of  a  regular  pro- 
cess so  unpleasant  in  its  management,  as  to  make  many  good 
men  shrink  from  it  entirely,  but  error  is  often  so  subtle  in  its 
incipient   stages,  that  it  may  be  widely  spread   and    operate 
most   injuriously,   before    it  can  be  met    by  formal  charges. 
The  whole  history  of  the  Church,  in  regard  to  the  rise  and 
progress  of  heresy,  and  of  the  means  taken  to  withstand  it, 
bears   testimony  to   this  truth,  and   to  its  importance.     Once 
establish  the  point,  (and  this  protest  seeks  to  establish  it)  that 
nothing  can   be  done  to  arrest  or  check  doctrinal  error,  but 
by  formal  charges  and  regular  process,  and  the  safety  of  the 
Church,  in  regard  to  its  orthodoxy,  is  gone.     Error  will  pro- 
ceed so  far,  under  various  disguises  and  evasions,  that  it  can- 
not be  arreste^d  even  by  process — not  at  least  till  it  assumes  its 
most  offensive  form,  and  then  only  by  a  convulsion,  which  will 
probably  rend  the  Church.    It  is  believed,  that  there  ought  to 
be   much   done   by  Presbyteries  to  check  error  in   doctrine, 
without  formal  process — more,  far  more,  than  by  a  resort  to  this 
method  for  restraining  its  progress.     Among  other  advantages, 
the  brother  who  has  begun  to  wander  from  the  truth,  is  much 
more  likely  to  be  reclaimed — one  great  object  of  discipline — 
in  the  way  recommended,  than  when  formally  prosecuted  and 
put  on  his  defence. 

It  ought  to  be  constantly  kept  in  mind,  that  it  was  the 
object  of  the  minute,  against  which  the  protest  is  directed,  to 
specify  "the  objections  of  those  who  complained  to  the  Synod" 
against  the  sermon,  considered  separately  from  its  author  ;  and 
that  hence  it  was,  that  the  mover  of  the  minute,  and  many  others 
with  him,  not  only  wished  and  entreated  Mr.  Barnes  and  his 
friends  to  give  every  explanation  in  their  power  of  the  sup- 
posed errors,  but  were  willing  that  Mr.  Barnes  should  vote,  as 
well  as  deliberate,  on  every  question  relative  to  points  speci- 
fied  in  the  minute.  The  course  to  be  taken  relative  to  the 
author  of  the  sermon,  was  to  be  an  after  consideration.  Through 


(      30     ) 

oversight,  a  few  words  were  introduced  into  ih'--''"""te  which 
appeared  to  refer  directly  to  the  author  "'  *"^  sermon  ;  but 
these  words,  as  soon  as  noticed  in  ""'^  ^^^^^  discussion,  were 
immediately  stricken  out  or  c'">"g6^^  '  ^"^  this  at  the  request 
of  the  mover.     It  wa.«  ^^*^  evident  and  declared  intention  of 
this  minute,  to  exaniine  and  decide,  in  the  first  instance,  on  the 
doctrines  of  the  sermon,  and  on  them  only — The  result  of  the 
examination  was  to  determine  what,  or  whether  any  proceed- 
ing, in  relation  to  the  author,  would  be  proper  and  necessary. 
As,  therefore,  Mr.  Barnes  was  not  to  be  implicated  in  the  result 
of  the  investigation,  if  no  material    errors  were  found  in  the 
sermon  ;  and  even  if  such  errors  were  found,  as  the  method  of 
procedure  in  regard  to   him  was  to  be  subsequently  and  sepa- 
rately considered,  the  statement  of  the  protest  is  utterly  incor- 
rect, when  it  affirms  that  this  was  "  really  the  commencement 
of  a  process  against  Mr.  Barnes  in  an  unconstitutional  way." 
The  constitutionality  of  this  method  of  procedure  is  asserted 
and  taught  in  the  minutes  of  the  General  Assembly  for  1824 
— taught  in  language  as  explicit  and    direct  as  if  it  had  been 
formed  in  reference  to  this  very  case.     The  minute  referred 
to  is  found  on  pages  219  and  220  of  the  year  just  mentioned, 
and  is  in  the  following  words,  viz.  "Perhaps  no  man  ought  to 
be  tried  on  charges  to  be  preferred  and  to  be  supported  by  evi- 
dence, who  is  not    present,  and  without  his  own  consent.     A 
trial,  in  the  nature  of  things,  cannot  be  impartial,  when  there 
is   but  one  party  heard.     And   in  this   case  no  injury  would 
have   been  sustained  by  delay, /or  the  Synod  might  have  pro- 
ceeded instantly  to  condemn   the  errors  of  Mr.   Craighead's 
book,  as  the  General  Assembly  did  in  the  case  of  the  Gospel 
Plan  of  W.  C.  Davis ;  the  process  against  the  author  how- 
ever did  not  commence  till  sometime  afterwards.^'     Here  it  is 
explicitly  stated  that  the  errors  of  Mr.  Craighead's  book,  and 
in  his  absence  too,  might  have  been  instantly  condemned,  and 
the  process  against  the  author  (unlawful  in  his  absence)  might 
have  been  commenced  sometime  afterwards ;  and  a  case  is  re- 
ferred to,  in  which   the  General  Assembly  acted  in  this  very 
manner.    The  protest,  therefore,  is  exactly  as  much  in  hostility 
with  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Assembly,  as  it   is  with 
those  of  the  Presbytery.     On  this   ground,  it  is  believed,  the 
Presbytery  may  safely  leave  it. 

But  the  protest  pleads,  that,  in  June  last,  charges  against 
the  orthodoxy  of  Mr.  Barnes  were  introduced  into  the  Presby- 
tery. The  just  and  true  statement  of  the  fact,  in  this  particu- 
lar, is,  that  the  charges  were  offered  solely  with  a  view  to 
arrest  the  installation  of  Mr.  Barnes,  till  the  alleged  unsound 
doctrine  of  his  sermon  should  be  considered  and  decided  on. 
By  refusing  then  to  consider  the  charges,  their  design  was 
completely  frustrated ;  and,  therefore,  it  would  be  utterly  im- 
proper and  unfair,  to  call  them  up  now,  when  Mr.  Barnes  has. 


(     31     ) 

actually  been  installed,  and  the  purpose  for  which  the  charges 
were  made,  has  been  entirely  defeated.  Besides,  when  the 
charges,  after  having  been  read  by  a  member  as  a  part  of  his 
speech,  were  thrown  out  of  Presbytery,  as  being  unseasonable 
and  improper,  (for  such  was  the  fact,)  they  were  no  longer  the 
properly  of  the  Presbytery,  but  became  as  much  the  property 
of  the  individual  who  presented  them,  as  any  other  of  his  pri- 
vate papers.  To  claim,  as  a  matter  of  right,  to  call  up,  at  a 
future  and  distant  day,  a  motion  or  a  paper,  which  was  utterly 
rejected  when  offered,  and  when  the  object  of  the  motion  or 
paper,  no  longer  exists,  is  believed  to  be  without  an  example, 
in  any  deliberative  body,  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  till  it  was  fur- 
nished in  the  present  case.  The  charges  in  question,  as  the 
records  of  Presbytery  abundantly  show,  were  not  offered,  till 
every  other  mode  of  bringing  the  sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes  under 
review  had  been  attempted,  and  attempted  in  vain.  But  the 
Synod  has  placed  the  complainants  on  other  ground  than  that 
which  requires  the  making  of  charges — the  very  ground  which 
the  cofnplainants  had  constantly  endeavoured  to  occupy,  till 
they  were  driven  from  it,  and  were  obliged,  as  a  last  resort,  in 
their  endeavours  to  prevent  what  they  deemed  a  most  injuri- 
ous measure,  to  offer  to  support  charges — a  course  of  proce- 
dure which  they  had  frequently  been  called  on  to  adopt,  and 
which,  when  adopted,  was  evaded  by  pleading  a  point  of  order 
— and  pleading  it  too,  on  what  the  Synod  manifestly  consider- 
ed as  untenable  ground,  inasmuch  as  the  Presbytery  was  called 
to  consider  and  decide  on  whatever  related  to  the  reception 
and  installation  of  Mr.  Barnes,  and  nothing  could  relate  more 
intimately  to  his  installation,  than  charges  which,  if  sustained, 
had  a  tendency  to  prevent  it.  But  when  the  Synod  have  re- 
stored the  complainants  to  the  ground  which  they  had  always 
believed  and  contended  was  the  most  proper,  it  is  to  the  last 
degree  unreasonable,  to  insist  that  the  rejected  charges  be  in- 
troduced, or  that  similar  ones  be  formed  and  preferred. 

But  it  is  urged,  as  a  decisive  argument  in  the  Protest,  that 
"  this  Presbytery,  on  the  2d  of  November  last,  resolved  to 
take  up  and  consider  those  charges."  The  fact  which  is  thus 
stated  in  the  Protest,  and  which  is  undeniable,  is  one  which 
the  Presbytery  wish  could  be  buried  in  everlasting  oblivion — 
not  for  the  sake  of  the  present  majority  of  Presbytery,  but  for 
the  sake  of  those  who  then  formed  the  majority,  and  did  that 
which  must  stand  recorded  as  a  Preshyterial  act.  The  cir- 
cumstances under  which  the  Presbytery  met  and  acted,  on  the 
2d  of  November  last,  arc  correctly  set  forth  in  the  Protest  of 
two  members  against  the  proceedings  then  had ;  and  there- 
fore need  not  be  here  repeated.  But  this  Presbytery  can  never 
regard  a  call  for  charges,  made  in  such  circumstances  as  were 
those  in  which  the  Presbytery  met  and  acted  on  the  2d  of  Nov. 
ber,  as  possessing  any  binding  force.  In  the  close  of  the  Pro- 


(     32     ) 

test,  there  is  an  intimation  that  those  who  had  been  the  accu- 
sers of  Mr.  Barnes,  ought  not  to  act  the  part  of  judges. — On 
which  the  Presbytery  remark,  that  none  of  its  members  have 
ever  shown  more  zeal,  as  the  accusers  of  Mr.  Barnes,  than 
others  have  shown  in  his  defence  ;  and  that  advocates  are  quite 
as  much  disqualified  for  being  judges,  as  accusers.  It  is  with 
grief  and  pain,  that  the  Presbytery  have  marked  the  spirit 
manifested  in  this  Protest,  and  more  fully  exhibited  when  it 
was  presented.  Most  gladly  would  the  Presbytery  have  re- 
ceived the  aid  of  their  brethren,  in  examining  the  doctrines 
of  Mr.  Barnes'  sermon,  and  heard  their  votes  decisively  given, 
either  in  approbation  or  disapprobation,  of  every  article  stated 
in  the  minute  against  which  they  protest.  To  obtain  the  can- 
did and  explicit  opinion  of  every  member  of  Presbytery,  on 
the  doctrines  of  this  sermon,  has,  from  first  to  last,  been  most 
frankly  and  earnestly  sought,  by  those  who  have  considered 
those  doctrines  as  unsound  ;  and  from  first  to  last  this  opinion 
has  been  withheld,  by  most  of  the  Protestants — withheld  on 
some  plea  framed  on  a  point  of  order.  But  the  Presbytery 
cannot  consent  to  neglect  what  they  regard  as  a  sacred  and 
imperious  duty,  because  they  cannot  have  the  company  of  their 
brethren,  and  must,  therefore,  although  with  unfeigned  reluc- 
tance, proceed  without  them. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Engles  to  enter  upon  the  examination  of 
the  sermon  was  then  put  and  carried,  by  a  vote  of  27  to  10. 
It  was  at  length  hoped,  that  Presbytery  would  be  permitted 
to  obey  the  injunction  of  Synod,  but  that  reasonable  expecta- 
tion was  disappointed  as  soon  as  it  was  entertained.  The  ma- 
jority had  still  to  submit  to  a  train  of  proceeding,  the  most 
vexatious.  If  the  artillery  of  the  main  bcdy  was  silenced,  the 
reserve  corps  had  still  the  means  of  annoyance.  We  will 
present  the  several  obstacles  thrown  in  the  way  of  the  Pres- 
bytery, in  their  attempt  to  obey  the  requisition  of  Synod,  in 
numerical  order,  that  they  may  be  more  distinctly  noticed. 

1.  Mr.  Barnes  inquired  of  Presbytery  whether  he  had  the 
right  of  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly,  and  of  thus  arresting 
the  further  consideration  of  his  case.  After  considerable  dis- 
cussion, it  was  decided  that  he  had  not  a  right  to  appeal  at 
this  stage,  and  that  the  constitution  had  never  contemplated 
the  communication  of  a  power  to  any  individual,  by  which  he 
might  completely  prevent  the  exercise  of  discipline  or  an  in- 
quiry into  doctrine,  in  his  own  case,  in  an  inferior  judicatory.* 

*  Dr.  Ely,  in  the  account  which  he  has  given  of  this  act,  has  entirely  mis- 
stated the  reason  which  induced  the  Presbytery  to  refuse  Mr.  Barnes'  ap- 
peal. He  says,  "it  was  agreed,  (that  is,  by  Presbytery)  that  Mr.'Barnes 
had  no  right  to  appeal,  because  he  had  not  then  submitted  to  a  trial. "  The 
true  and  the  just  reason  we  have  stated  above. 


(     33      ) 

2.  Dr.  Mitchell,  an  elder  from  Frankford,  then  moveci^ 
"That  the  paper  now  under  consideration  be  committed,  fof 
the  purpose  of  preparing  such  a  view  of  objections  to  the  ser- 
mon as  shall  embrace  all  the  authorities  and  proofs  in  support 
of  such  objections,  and  that  for  this  end,  the  Committee  be  al- 
lowed two  weeks  to  make  their  report." 

The  object  of  this  motion  was  certainly  not  to  expedite 
business,  when  a  paper  precisely  of  the  character  contempla- 
ted in  the  resolution,  was  then  before  the  Presbytery  in  the 
minute  of  Dr.  Green.  The  motion  of  Dr.  Mitchell  was  nega- 
tived. 

3.  Mr.  Barnes  then  presented  the  following  paper,  viz.  i 
"  The  undersigned,  deeming  it  unconstitutional  to  try  and  con- 
demn a  sermon  of  his  without  placing  him  on  trial  on  regular 
charges,  according  to  the  book  of  discipline  ;  and  believing 
that  an  investigation  of  the  sermon  where  he  cannot  constitu- 
tionally make  a  regular  defence  on  charges  regularly  brought, 
is  improper ;  and  desirous  that  full  justice  may  be  done  to  him 
and  the  subject,  acknowledges  himself  the  author  of  a  sermon 
called  the  Way  of  Salvation,  with  the  notes  thereto  appended, 
published  at  Morristown,  N.  J.  and  professing  himself  ready 
to  answer  any  charges  which  may  be  alleged  to  that  sermon 
respecting  his  orthodoxy,  with  the  privilege  of  a  proper  ex" 
planation  of  its  sentiments  and  meaning;  most  respectfully 
requests  of  the  Presbytery  to  proceed  in  regular  form  to  try 
him  on  the  sentiments  of  that  sermon  ;  either  on  the  ground 
of  common  fame,  or  by  a  responsible  accuser,  or  by  accusers^ 

(Signed)  ALBERT  BARNES. 

Nov.  2,  ISoO." 

Dr.  Green,  Mr.  Winchester,  and  Mr.  Latta,who  were  aip-' 
pointed  a  committee  for  the  purpose,  assigned  the  following 
reasons,  why  the  Presbytery  could  not  comply  with  the  re- 
quest  made  in  this  paper,  viz. 

The  reasons  ivhy  the  Presbytery  refused  to  take  the  course  r&-< 
quested  by  Mr.  Barnes  in  the  examination  of  his  sermon. 

The  basis,  or  fundamental  position,  on  which  Mr.  Barnes 
rests  the  whole  of  his  objections  and  request,  is  the  very 
same  with  that  of  the  protest  already  answered;  namely,  that 
it  is  "unconstitutional  to  try  and  condemn  a  sermon  of  his, 
without  placing  him  on  trial  on  regular  charges,  according  to 
the  book  of  discipline."  But  this,  it  has  already  been  shown, 
is  altogether  a  gratuitous  assumption  ;  it  may,  however,  be  re- 
marked in  addition,  that  it  is  an  allegation  made  in  direct  op- 
position, not  merely  to  the  opinion  of  the  present  majority  of 
Presbytery,  but  to  the  decision  of  the  Synod,  by  which  the 
present  proceedings  have  been  enjoined  ;  and  that  it  is  in  op-' 
5 


(     34     ) 

position  to  the  express  judgment  of  the  General  Assembly,  has 
been  clearly  shown  in  answering  the  protest. 

Let  it  be  distinctly  noted,  that  it  was  because  a  majority  of 
the  Presbytery  refused  to  permit  the  orthodoxy  of  Mr.  Barnes' 
sermon  to  come  under  examination,  previously  to  his  reception 
and  installation,  that  complaint  was  made  to  Synod  ;  and  the 
Synod,  by  declaring,  as  they  do  in  their  first   resolution,  that 
"  the  Presbytery  gave  just  ground  of  complaint  to  the  minor- 
ity," did  explicitly  assert  and  sanction  the  constitutionality 
of  the  principle  on  which  the  minority  made  their  complaint. 
And  the  Synod,  proceeding  on  the  very  same  ground,  namely, 
that  the  Presbytery  had  refused  to  the  complainants  the  exer- 
cise of  a  constitutional  right,  *' referred  them  back  to  the  Pres- 
bytery of  which  they  are  members,  with  an  injunction  to  that 
Presbytery,  to  hear  and  decide  on  the  orthodoxy  of  the  ser- 
mon of  Mr.  Barnes,  and  to  take  such  order  on  the  whole  sub- 
ject as  is  required  by  a  regard  to  the  purity  of  the  Church  and 
its  acknowledged  doctrines  and  order."     Can  it  be  pretended, 
then,  that  after  sustaining  the  complaint  of  the  minority,  and 
sending  them  back  to  their  Presbytery  to  be  redressed,  that  it 
was  the  mind  of  the  Synod,  to  put  that  minority  on  other 
ground  than  that  which  they  had   desired  to  take,  and  which 
had  been  refused  them  !■     Such  a  supposition  cannot  be  made, 
without  a  manifest  perversion  of  the  language  and  evident  in- 
tention of  the  Synod.     It  cannot,  with  any  show  of  reason,  be 
supposed,  that   the  Synod   intended   that  charges   should  be 
tabled  against  Mr.  Barnes,  or  that  he  should  be  prosecuted  on 
the  ground  of  common  fame  ;  for  they  say  not  a  word  of  this 
kind,  and  the  whole  import  of  their  decision  is,  that  his  sermon 
should  be  examined  as  the  complainants  at  first  attempted  to 
examine  it.     In  a  word,  no  fair  construction  can  be  given  to 
the  injunction  of  the   Synod,  but  this,  that   the  Presbytery 
should  hear  and  decide  on  the  objections  to  the  orthodoxy  of 
the  sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes,  in  the  very  form  and  manner  in 
which   these  objections  were  at  first  attempted  to  be  made  ; 
and  for  the  counteraction  of  which  attempt,  the  Presbytery 
was  censured,  as  denying  to  the  complainants  the  exercise  of 
a  constitutional  right. 

The  Presbytery,  therefore,  have  refused  to  take  the  course 
pointed  out  by  Mr.  Barnes,  because  he  asks  them,  1st.  To 
surrender  to  his  request  a  constitutional  principle,  which  the 
Presbytery  consider  as  vital  to  the  purity  of  the  Church,  and 
the  maintainance  of  which  they  regard  as  of  far  more  impor- 
tance than  any  decision  which  may  be  made  on  his  particular 
case.  And  2dly.  To  do  this,  in  dereliction  of  the  very  ground 
assigned  to  them  by  the  Synod  ;  and  assigned  in  compliance 
with  the  petition  of  the  complainants  :  3dly.  To  do  this,  for 
a  mode  of  procedure  necessarily  productive  of  delay,  and  al- 
ways attended  with  considerable  difficulties ;  and,  at  the  same 


(     35     ) 

lime,  not  productive  of  a  single  advantage  to  Mr.  Barnes,  be- 
yond the  method  proposed  by  Presbytery — provided  that  it  is 
his  sincere  desire,  that  a  fair,  candid,  and  impartial  examina- 
tion of  his  sermon  should  be  had ;  and  that  such  decision  should 
be  made  on  its  contents,  as  is  "  required  by  a  regard  to  the 
purity  of  the  Church,  and  to  its  acknowledged  doctrines,  and 
order." 

The  application  of  Mr.  Barnes,  to  be  tried  upon  the  ground 
of  his  sermon,  was  particularly  strange,  as  he  had  more  than 
once  declared  in  Presbytery,  that  he  did  not  consider  this 
Presbytery  as  having  any  jurisdiction  over  that  sermon  ;  not 
because  he  had  not  avowed  it  as  his  production,  but  because 
it  had  been  preached  and  published  in  the  bounds  of  another 
Presbytery. 

4.  It  was  then  moved  by  Dr.  Skinner  that  the  original  busi- 
ness be  postponed  to  take  up  this  motion,  viz. 

"Resolved,  That  the  request  of  Mr.  Barnes,  as  presented 
in  his  paper,  be  granted."  This  motion,  the  Moderator  pro- 
nounced to  be  out  of  order,  as  it  had  just  been  decided  that 
the  request  could  not  be  granted. 

5.  Dr.  Mitchell  then  moved  a  postponement  of  the  business 
to  take  up  the  following  motion,  viz  : 

"  Whereas  certain  members  of  this  Presbytery  appeared  in 
the  character  of  complainants  before  the  Synod  of  Philadel- 
phia at  their  late  sessions  in  Lancaster  touchJ/ig  certain  pro- 
cedures of  Presbytery  in  relation  to  the  Rev.  A.  Barnes  and 
his  printed  sermon,  which  complaint  issued  in  an  injunction 
from  the  Synod  to  the  Presbytery  to  ^ear  and  decide  on  the 
objections  of  the  complainants  to  the  orthodoxy  of  that  ser- 
mon, and  to  do  in  the  case  whatever  a  regard  to  the  order  and 
purity  of  the  church  mighi  seem  to  require ;  and  whereas,  in 
literal  compliance  with  that  injunction.  Presbytery  have  heard 
at  full  length  a  written  statement  of  objections  with  such  sup- 
posed proofs  annexed  as  the  Confession  of  Faith  could  fur- 
nish ;  and  whereas  the  manifest  state  of  feeliog  in  the  Pres- 
bytery renders  a  compliance  with  the  latter  part  of  Synod's 
injunction  altogether  impracticable  by  a  protracted  discussion 
of  said  objections  ;  and  whereas,  our  booJ^  of  discipline  wisely 
provides  that,  in  difficult  questions  and  such  as  may  greatly 
divide  a  Presbytery,  a  reference  of  the  whole  matter  to  the 
General  Assembly  may  be  highly  proper,  therefore,  Resolved, 
that  the  sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes,  together  with  the  complain- 
ants' objections,  and  such  explanations  as  Mr.  Barnes  may 
think  proper  to  furnish,  be  referred  to  the  next  General  Assem- 
bly, for  their  final  decision." 

This  motion  was  negatived;  but  truth  compels  us  to  remark, 
that  nine-tenths  of  that  improper  excitement,  which  the  Dr. 
considered  as  disqualifying  the    Presbytery   for  the  faithful 


(     36     ) 

discharge  of  their  high  duties,  was  chargeable  upon  the  mi- 
nority, of  which  he  was  a  member ;  a  fact  which  justifies  the 
application  of  the  maxim,  "  Physician  heal  thyself." 

6.  Dr.  M'Auley  moved  "  that  the  further  discussion  of  this 
subject  be  postponed,  and  the  whole  subject  be  referred  to  the 
General  Assembly  for  final  adjudication."  This  motion  the 
moderator  pronounced  to  be  out  of  order,  as  being  a  mere 
repetition  of  previous  ones  which  had  been  negatived. 

After  having  followed  the  minority  through  all  their  intri" 
cate  windings,  we  are  disposed  to  pause  for  a  moment,  and 
wonder  at  the  multiplied  diflnculties  which  were  thus   assem- 
bled around  a  very  simple  question.     The  direction  of  Synod 
was  extremely  plain  and  explicit ;  there  was  in  it  no  ambiguity 
of  phrase  to  countenance  double  interpretations  5  the  course 
it  pointed  out  was  well  defined,  which  was,  first  to  examine 
the  orthodoxy  of  Mr.  Barnes'  sermon  abstractly,  and  then, 
guided  by  the  result  of  this  examination,  to  take  such  further 
order  on  the  subject  as  a  regard  to  the  purity  of  the  Church 
might  require  ;  and  why  then  the  zeal,  the  ingenuity,  and  per- 
severance of  the  minority  to  avoid  this  obvious  course "?  Why 
insist  that  Mr.  Barnes  should  be  regularly  charged  and  tried? 
"Was  it  with  an  intention  of  placing  some  of  the  majority  in 
the  attitude  of  accusers,  and  of  thus  depriving  them  of  their 
privilege  of  judging  and  deciding  in  the  case  'I     This  was,  in 
the  first  instance,  avowed.     Was  it  with  the  intention  of  ren- 
dering them  publicly  odious  as  the  prosecutors,  or,  as  it  might 
easily  be  interpreted,  the  persecutors  of  Mr.  Barnes '?    This, 
from  the  whole  aspect  of  the  debate,  seemed  highly  probable. 
Or,  was  it  from  zeal  to  preserve  the  constitution  of  the  church 
inviolate?     This  was  thb  alleged  reason,   and  upon  it  the 
changes  were  rung  for  the  spa.ce  of  two  days. 

Mr.  Barnes  asserted,  that  the  only  constitutional  ground 
upon  which  his  case  could  be  cohsidered,  was  a  formal  pro- 
cess against  himself,  upon  the  ground  of  his  sermon,  although 
he  had  before  asserted  that  he  was  not  amenable  to  this  Pres' 
bytery  for  that  sermon.  Dr.  Ely  reiterated,  that  this  was  the 
only  constitutional  mode  of  proceeding;  although,  in  an  at- 
tempt to  extricate  himself  from  a  diflficulty  at  the  time  of  Mr. 
Barnes'  installation,  he  publicly  declared,  that  he  had  just 
found  from  the  constitution,  that  charges  could  not  lie  against 
Mr.  Barnes,  on  the  ground  of  the  sermon,  because  if  there 
was  offence  in  the  sermon,  it  was  an  offence  committed  be- 
yond the  limits  of  our  jurisdiction.  Now  let  it  be  asked,  is 
their  interpretation  of  the  constitution  to  be  admitted,  who 
can  interpret  it,  to  mean  two  opposite  things,  as  occasion  may 
demand  9  Is  their  construction  of  this  constitution  to  be  ad- 
mitted as  infallible  now,  whose  construction  of  it  on  a  former 
occasion,  was  so  glaringly  erroneous,  as  to  call  down  upon 
them  the  condemnation  of  Synod  "?    If  the  minority  were  re- 


(     37     ) 

garded  with  distrust  in  urging  this  plea,  the  distrust  was  cer- 
tainly justifiable.  The  course  which  the  Presbytery  was  now 
pursuing  in  the  examination  of  the  sermon,  was  not  only  the 
most  obvious  ;  the  most  constitutional  ;  the  most  accordant 
with  the  resolution  of  Synod ;  but  it  was  the  most  mild  and 
tender.  Severe  measures  are  never  to  be  resorted  to,  when 
more  lenient  ones  may  be  sufficient.  The  kindest  feelings 
were  shown  towards  Mr.  Barnes  from  the  commencement,  by 
those  who  felt  themselves  obliged  in  duty,  to  object  to  his  ser- 
mon ;  and  there  is  but  one  minute  on  the  records,  which  seems 
to  bear  an  unfriendly  aspect ;  we  allude  to  that  in  which  he 
was  excluded  from  a  vote  in  the  proceedings ;  but  let  it  be 
remembei'ed  that  this  %vas  a  decision  procured  by  the  votes  of 
his  friends,  in  opposition  to  a  motion  by  one  of  the  majority, 
that  he  be  considered  as  having  the  right,  both  to  deliberate  and 
vote. 

But  to  proceed.  The  obstacles  being  at  length  removed, 
as  it  was  confidently  thought,  the  minute  of  Dr.  Green  was 
once  more  called  up.  But  before  the  consideration  of  it  was 
commenced,  one  or  two  additional  preliminaries  were  to  be 
settled.  Mr.  Barnes  arose  and  requested  leave  of  absence 
during  the  remainder  of  the  sessions ;  alleging  that  he  could 
be  of  no  use  to  the  Presbytery ;  that  he  had  important  duties 
to  attend  to,  elsewhere  ;  and,  moreover,  that  although  he  was 
confident  that  he  could  make  such  explanations  of  his  sermon 
as  would  satisfy  the  Presbytery,  of  the  entire  harmony  of  his 
views  with  those  contained  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  yet, 
upon  advising  with  his  friends,  he  had  come  to  the  determina- 
tion not  to  otfer  them  at  that  time  ! !  If  astonishment  was  felt 
at  other  things  which  had  transpired  in  the  course  of  this 
discussion,  unmingled  amazement  was  felt  at  this  expression. 
Mr.  Barnes  felt  confident  that  he  could  remove  every  diffi- 
culty ;  that  he  could  quiet  an  unhappy  excitement ;  that  he 
could  reconcile  alienated  brethren  ;  that  he  could  restore  har- 
mony to  a  rent  and  divided  Presbytery ;  that  he  could  do  all 
this  real  service  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  by  an  explanation  which 
would  cost  him  neither  time  nor  labour,  but  that  nevertheless, 
this  explanation  should  be  withheld,  from  a  regard  to  some 
trifling  punctilio  ! !  How  incredible  would  this  appear,  if  the 
testimony  in  confirmation  was  not  indisputable.  Mr.  Barnes 
was  excused  from  further  attendance,  agreeably  to  his  request ; 
the  majority,  and  particularly.  Dr.  Green,  who  proposed  the 
minute,  earnestly  requesting  him  to  remain,  that  he  might 
hear  every  objection  made  to  the  sermon,  and  offer  any  expla- 
nations ;  and  the  minority  as  earnestly  voting  that  he  should 
go ;  although,  afterwards  they  complained  that  he  was  thus 
(by  their  own  decision)  virtually  shut  out  of  the  house,  and 
that  to  condemn  his  sermon  in  his  absence,  would  be  an  ex- 
treme unkindness! 


(     38     ) 

But  there  is  another  feature  which  must  be  added  to  this 
picture   of  inconsistency.     The   Rev.   Messrs.   Skinner,  Ely, 
Belville,  Biggs,   Scott,    Dashiell,    Eustace,    Hoover,    Bacon, 
John  Smith,  Patterson,  Sanford,  Grant,  and  M'Auley,  J\Hnis- 
ters ;  and  JMessrs.  Roberts,  Darling,  Dallas,  Mitchell,  Mason, 
Withington,  Vandyke,  O'Neil,  and  Stratton,  Elders,  declared 
it  to  be  their  intention,  to  take  no  further  part  in  the  delibe- 
rations now  pending,  and  to  decline  giving  any  vote   it  the 
case  ;  because,  as  they  alleged,  to  take  any  part  in  an  uncon- 
stitutional proceeding,  would  be  tantamount  to  giving  in  their 
sanction.     This  was  indeed  a  desertion  of  Mr.  Barnes,  at  the 
most  critical  juncture  of  his  affairs.     What !  not  one  word  in 
the  defence  of  the  sermon  !  not  one  single  attempt  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  author,  to  defend  it  against  the  charge  o(  heresy! 
The  plea  of  unconstitutionality  is  too  flimsy  to  be  received, 
and  we  are  compelled  to  seek  the  reasons  of  their  singular 
determination  elsewhere.     It  will  be  recollected,  that  from 
the  first  introduction  of  this  business  before  the  Presbytery, 
these  same  individuals  had  evinced  great  reluctance  in  touch- 
ing upon  the  doctrinal  points  in  Mr.  Barnes'  sermon ;  and 
may  it  not  fairly  be  inferred,  that  the  same  sensitiveness,  in- 
duced them  to  avoid  committing  themselves  upon  these  points 
noiv  ?     If,  in  this  intimation,  we  be  condemned  for  judging 
motives,  our  only  plea  of  justification  is  founded  upon  the 
strong  aspect  of  the  facts.     Having,  however,  firmly  and  re- 
peatedly declared  their  intention  of  remaining  silent,  the  mi- 
nority found  that  they  had  legislated  themselves  into  a  dilem- 
ma, from  which  the  conciliatory  spirit  of  the  majority  alone 
could  extricate  them.     A  standing  rule  provides  that  silent 
members,  unless  formally  excused  from  voting,  shall  be  consid- 
ered  as  acquiescing  with  the  majority  in  the  decision  of  a 
question,  and,  therefore,  as  depriving  themselves  of  the  privi- 
lege of  complaint,  protest,  or  appeal.  The  minority  were  thus 
completely  at  the  mercy  of  the  majority,  who,  by  refusing  to 
excuse  them  from  voting,    could  have    identified  them  as  a 
part  of  themselves,  and  thus  excluded  them  from  a  resort  to  a 
higher  judicatory.   Their  power,  however,  was  magnanimously 
exercised  ;  the  request  of  the  minority  was  fully  granted,  and, 
although  the  concession  was  a  very  unusual  and  liberal  one, 
no  "  low  bow"  from  Dr.  Ely,  was  received  in  return. 

All  the  preliminaries  being  thus  settled,  the  minute  offered 
by  Dr.  Green  was  read  by  paragraphs,  discussed,  and  adopted, 
and  is  as  follows,  viz  : 

FINAL  DECISION. 

The  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  agreeably  to  the  direction 
of  the  Synod  at  their  recent  meeting  in  Lancaster,  having  con- 
sidered the  sermon  of  the  Revd.  Albert  Barnes,  entitled  the 


(       39  ) 

Way  of  Salvation,  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  contains  specu- 
lations of  dangerous  tendency  on  some  of  the  principal  points 
in  Christian  theology,  and  ought  not  therefore  to  be  sanction- 
ed as  expressing  that  view  of  the  great  truths  of  God's  word, 
which  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  uniformly  adopted  and 
which  is  exhibited  in  their  authorised  Confession  of  Faith. 

In  stating  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  the  author  employs  a 
phraseology  which  is  calculated  to  mislead,  and  which  appears 
evidently  to  conflict  with  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  standards 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

1.  He  denies  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  responsible  or 
answerable  for  Adam's  first  sin,  which  he  committed  as  the  fed- 
eral head  of  his  race.  Thus,  p.  6,  "  Christianity  does  not  charge 
on  men  crimes  of  which  they  are  not  guilty.  It  does  not  say, 
as  I  suppose,  that  the  sinner  is  held  to  be  personally  answera- 
ble for  the  transgressions  of  Adam  or  of  any  other  man." 

Although  the  word  transgressions  is  here  used  plurally,  yet 
it  is  evident  from  the  whole  tenor  of  this  division  of  the  dis- 
course, that  the  prime  sin  of  Adam,  which  constituted  his  aposta- 
cy  from  God,  is  meant.  Again,  he  says,  p.  7,  "Neither  the 
facts,  nor  any  proper  inference  from  the  facts  affirm,  that  I  am  in 
either  case  personally  responsiblefor  ivhat  another  man  (refer- 
ring to  Adam)  dit/  before  I  had  an  existencey  And  he  expli- 
citly declares  that  if  God  had  charged  upon  mankind  such  a 
responsibility,  it  would  have  been  clearly  unjust,  vide  p.  6. 
The  doctrine  of  responsibility  here  impugned  is  clearly  expres- 
sed. Con.  of  F.  cap.  vi.  6.  "Every  sin,  both  original  and  ac- 
tual, being  a  transgression  of  the  righteous  law  of  God  and 
contrary  thereunto,  doth  in  its  own  nature  bring  guilt  upon  the 
sinner,  whereby  he  is  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God  and  curse 
of  the  law  and  so  made  subject  to  death,  with  all  miseries 
spiritual,  temporal  and  eternal." 

2.  In  accordance  with  the  above  doctrine,  that  mankind  are 
not  responsible  for  Adam's  sin,  he  affirms,  p.  7,  that  "Chris- 
tianity affirms  the  fact,  that  in  connection  with  the  sin  of  Adam, 
or  as  a  result,  all  moral-agents  will  sin  and  sinning  will  die." 
And  then  proceeds  to  explain  the  principle  upon  which  the  uni- 
versality of  sin  is  to  be  accounted  for,  by  representing  it  to  be 
the  result  of  Adam's  sin,  in  the  same  sense,  as  the  misery  of  a 
drunkard's  family  is  the  result  of  his  intemperance.  Here  it 
would  seem,  the  author  maintains  that  the  same  relationship 
subsists  between  every  man  and  his  family,  as  subsisted  be- 
tween Adam  and  his  posterity;  that  the  same  principle  of  mo- 
ral government  applies  to  both  cases  alike,  or  in  other  words, 
that  mankind  hold  no  other  relationship  to  Adam,  than  that  of 
children  to  a  natural  progenitor. 

The  public  federal  or  representative  character  of  Adam  is 
thus  denied,  contrary  to  the  explicit  statement  in  the  answer  to 
the  22  Q,.  of  Larg.  Cat.     "  The  covenant  bcin;j  made  with 


(     40     ) 

Adam  as  a  public  person,  not  for  himself  only,  but  for  his  pos- 
terity ;  all  mankind  descending  from  him  by  ordinary  genera- 
tion sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him,  in  that  first  transgression." 

3.  He  declares,  p.  7.  that  "the  notion  of  imputing  sin  is  an 
invention  of  modern  times,"  contrary  to  Con.  of  F.  Chap.  vi.  3, 
"They  being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of  this  sin  was 
imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature  con- 
veyed to  all  their  posterity,  descending  from  them  by  ordinary 
generation." 

4.  In  p.  5,  he  admits  that  his  language  on  the  subject  of 
original  sin  differs  from  that  used  by  the  Confession  of  Faith  on 
the  same  subject,  and  then  accounts  for  this  difference  on  the 
ground  of  the  difficulty  of  affixing  any  clear  and  definite  mean- 
ing to  the  expression"  we  sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him.'* 
This  expression  he  considers,  as  far  as  it  is  capable  of  interpre- 
tation, as  "  intended  to  convey  the  idea,  not  that  the  sin  of 
Adam  is  imputed  to  us,  or  set  over  to  our  account,  but  that 
there  was  a  personal  identity  constituted  between  Adam  and 
his  posterity,  so  that  it  was  really  our  act,  and  ours  only,  after 
all  that  is  chargeable  on  us." 

The  whole  of  this  statement  is  exceedingly  incautious  and 
improper.  The  language  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  on  one  of 
the  cardinal  doctrines  is  held  up  as  obscure  and  unintelligible, 
or,  if  possessing  any  meaning,  as  expressing  an  absurdity.  The 
framers  of  this  confession  are  charged  with  the  absurdity  of 
maintaining  the  personal  identity  between  Adam  and  his  pos- 
terity, when  their  language  conveys  no  more  than  a  federal  or 
representative  relationship.  This  whole  view  of  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin,  is,  in  the  opinion  of  Presbytery  obscure,  per- 
plexed, fruitful  of  dangerous  consequences,  and,  therefore,  cen- 
surable. 

The  statements  of  this  sermon  on  the  doctrine  of  Atone- 
ment, are  also  in  the  opinion  of  Presbytery,  in  some  important 
features,  erroneous,  and  contrary  to  the  orthodox  views. 

1.  At  p.  11.  He  says  "  this  atonement  was  for  all  men.  It 
was  an  offering  made  for  the  race.  It  had  not  respect  so 
much  to  individuals,  as  to  the  law  and  perfections  of  God.  It 
was  an  opening  of  the  way  of  pardon,  a  making  forgiveness 
consistent,  a  preserving  of  truth,  a  magnifying  of  the  law,  and 
had  no  particular  reference  to  any  class  of  men." 

Here  it  is  denied  that  the  atonement  had  any  special  relation 
to  the  elect,  which  it  had  not  also  to  the  non-elect.  But  if  it 
be  true  that  the  atonement  offered  by  Christ,  had  no  "  respect 
to  individuals,"  "no  particular  reference  to  any  class  of  men," 
upon  what  principle  can  it  be  regarded  as  a  satisfaction  to  di- 
vine justice  for  the  sins  of  men  9  or  in  what  proper  sense  can 
Christ  be  considered  as  a  vicarious  sacrifice  1  unless  the  atone- 
ment be  a  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  individuals,  upon  what 
principle  can  it  open  the  way  of  pardon,  make  forgiveness  con- 


(     41     ) 

fiistent,  preserve  truth  or  magnify  the  law "?  The  special  ref- 
erence of  the  atonement  to  a  chosen  people  in  opposition  tc 
this  view  is  taught  Con.  of  F.  cap.  viii.  5.  "The  Lord  Jesus,  by 
his  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice  of  himself,  which  he,  thro' 
the  Eternal  Spirit,  once  offered  up  unto  God  hath  fully  satisfied 
the  justice  of  his  Father,  and  purchased  not  only  reconciliation 
but  an  everlasting  inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  for 
all  those  whom  the  Father  hath  given  unto  him."  Again,  irt 
answer  to  Q,.  44  L.  C.  "Christ  executeth  the  office  of  a  Priest  in 
his  once  ofiering  himself  a  sacrifice  without  spot  to  God,  to  be 
a  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  his  people,"  &lc. 

2.  At  p.  11.  He  says  "The  atonement  of  itself  secured  the 
salvation  of  no  one,"  and  again  "  The  atonement  secured  the 
salvation  of  no  one,  except  as  God  had  promised  his  Son  that 
he  should  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul,  and  except  on  the  con- 
dition of  repentance  and  faith."  This  language  is  incautious 
and  calculated  to  mislead,  as  it  seems  to  imply  that  the  atone- 
ment of  itself  does  not  secure  its  own  application,  and  therefore 
may  by  possibility  fail  in  its  design.  It  is  improper  to  suspend 
its  efficacy  upon  conditions,  when  the  conditions  themselves 
are  the  results  ofits  efficacy,  see  Con.  of  F.  cap.  viii.  8.  "  To  all 
those  for  whom  Christ  hath  purchased  redemption,  he  doth 
certainly  and  effectually  apply  and  communicate  the  same  ; 
making  intercession  for  them,  and  revealing  unto  them  in  and 
by  the  word  the  mysteries  of  salvation  ;  effectually  persuading 
them  by  his  Spirit  to  believe  and  obey,"  &c. 

3.  At  p.  10.  He  unequivocally  denies  that  Christ  endured 
the  penalty  of  the  law.  "  He  did  not  indeed  endure  the  penalty 
of  the  law,  for  his  sufferings  were  not  eternal,  nor  did  he  en- 
dure remorse  of  conscience  ;  but  he  endured  so  much  suffer- 
ing, bore  so  much  agony,  that  the  Father  was  pleased  to  ac- 
cept of  it  in  the  place  of  the  eternal  torments  of  all  that  should 
be  saved."  Here  it  seems  to  be  inculcated  that  Christ  did  not 
satisfy  the  precise  claims  which  a  violated  law  had  upon  the 
sinner,  but  that  he  did  what  might  be  considered  a  substitute 
for  such  satisfaction  ;  or  it  is  implied  that  God  remitted  or 
waived  the  original  claim  and  accepted  of  something  less. 
And  that  this  is  the  sentiment  of  the  author,  is  evident  front 
his  language  p.  II.  "Christ's  sufferings  were  severe,  more 
severe  than  those  of  any  mortal  before  or  since  ;  but  they  bore, 
Bo  far  as  we  can  see,  only  a  very  distant  resemblance  to  the 
pains  of  hell,  the  proper  penalty  of  the  law.  Nor  is  it  possible 
to  conceive  that  the  sufferings  of  a/ew  hours,  however  severe,- 
could  equal  pains  though  far  less  intense,  eternally  prolonged. 
Still  less  that  the  sufferings  of  human  nature  in  a  single  in- 
stance, for  the  divine  nature  could  not  suffer,  should  be  equaf 
to  the  eternal  pain  of  many  millions."  Here  it  is  affirmed  that 
Christ  was  not  ca^^aft/e  of  enduring  that  penalty  which  the  justice 
of  God  had  exacted  of  the  sinner,  that  his  sufferings  bore  a  very 
distant  resemblance  to  it,  and  by  consequence  that  the  penalty 

& 


(     4^     ) 

of  the  law  has  been  either  relaxed  or  is  yet  unpaid,  and  that 
the  justice  of  God  has  waived  its  original  demand  oris  yet  un- 
satisfied. 

The  whole  of  this  language  seems  derogatory  to  Christ  as  an 
all  sufficient  Redeemer;  it  judges  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
as  if  it  were  a  common  human  nature,  it  leaves  out  of  view  the 
infinite  support  which  the  divine  nature  was  capable  of  im- 
parting to  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  and  is  very  ditferent  from 
the  view  of  this  subject  given  by  the  framers  of  our  standards 
in  the  ansv;er  to  the  38  Q,.  of  L.  C.  "  It  was  requisite  that  the 
Mediator  should  be  God,  that  he  might  sustain  and  keep  the 
human  nature  from  sinking  under  the  infinite  wrath  of  God 
and  the  power  of  death;  give  worth  and  efficacy  to  his  suffer- 
ings, obedience  and  intercession  ;  and  to  satisfy  God's  jus- 
tice." &c.  &c. 

[n  discoursing  on  human  ability  the  sermon  contains  expres- 
sions which  do  not  seem  to  be  well  judged.  In  p.  14.  it  is  said, 
"  it  is  not  to  any  want  of  physical  strength  that  this  rejection 
is  owing,  for  men  have  power  enough  in  themselves,  to  hate 
both  God  and  their  fellow  men,  and  it  requires  less  physical 
power  to  love  God  than  to  hate  him;"  and  on  the  same  page  he 
Represents  man's  inability  as  solely  in  the  will;  and  on  p.  30, 
that  men  are  not  saved  simply  because  they  ivill  not  be  saved. 
Here  physical  ability  is  represented  as  competent  to  the  per- 
formance of  a  moral  action,  which  is  an  improper  application 
of  terms,  and  human  inability  as  resulting  merely  from  the  will, 
and  not  from  total  depravity,  which  is  contrary  to  Confession 
Faith,  cap.  vi.  4.  "  From  this  original  corruption,  whereby 
we  are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all 
good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  do  proceed  all  actual 
transgressions,"  and  Confession  of  Faith,  cap.  ix.  3.  "  Man, 
by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will 
to  any  spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation,  so,  as  a  natural 
man  being  altogether  averse  from  that  which  is  good,  and  dead 
in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own  strength,  to  convert  himself,  or 
to  prepare  himself  thereunto." 

Still  further,  the  language  of  the  sermon,  on  the  subject  of 
conformity  to  the  standards  of  the  church,  if  sanctioned,  would 
give  to  every  individual  after  adopting  these  standards,  the 
liberty  of  dissenting  from  them  as  much,  and  as  often,  as  he 
might  desire.  Thus  p.  6,  he  says,  *'  It  is  not  denied  that  this 
language  varies  from  the  statements  which  are  often  made  on 
this  subject,  and  from  the  opinion  which  has  been  entertained 
by  many.  And,  it  is  admitted,  that  it  does  not  accord  with 
that  used  on  the  same  subject  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
other  standards  of  doctrine."  And  again,  p.  12.  "The  great 
principle  on  which  the  author  supposes  the  truths  of  religion 
are  to  be  preached,  and  on  which  he  endeavours  to  act  is, 
that  the  Bible  is  to  be  interpreted  by  all  the  honest  helps 
within  the  reach  of  the  preacher,  and  then  proclaimed  as  it 


(     43     ) 

is,  let  it  lead  where  it  will,  within,  or  without  the  circumfe- 
rence of  any  arrangement  of  doctrines.  He  is  supposed  to  be 
responsible,  not  at  all  for  its  impinging  on  any  theological 
system  ;  nor  is  he  to  be  cramped  by  any  frame  work  of  Faith 
that  has  been  reared  around  the  IJible."  This  language  would 
seem  to  imply,  that  an  individual  may  enter  the  bosom  of  a 
church  by  a  public  reception  of  its  creed,  and  continue  in  the 
communion  of  that  church,  although  he  should  subsequently 
discover  that  its  creed  was  not  founded  on  the  word  of  God. 
Whilst  the  liberty  of  every  man  to  accept  or  reject  any  par- 
ticular creed,  is  fully  acknowledged  by  this  Presbytery,  yet, 
they  do  deny,  that  any  minister,  whilst  he  remains  in  the  com- 
munion of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  has  a  right  to  impugn  its 
creed,  or  to  make  a  public  declaratioa  that  he  is  not  bound  by 
its  authority. 

In  fine,  a  ivhole  view  of  this  discourse  seems  to  warrant  the 
belief,  that  the  grand  and  fundamental  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion, as  held  by  the  Protestant  Reformers,  and  taught  clearly 
and  abundantly  in  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
is  really  not  held,  but  denied  in  this  sermon.  For  the  impu- 
tation of  Adam'ti  sin  is  denied  ;  and  the  endurance  of  the  pe- 
nalty of  the  law  by  Christ,  is  denied  ;  and  any  special  refer- 
ence of  the  atonement  to  the  elect  of  God,  is  denied,  and  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  as  the  meritorious  ground  of  our  ac- 
quittal and  acceptance  with  God,  is  not  once  mentioned, 
allhough  the  text  of  tiie  discourse  naturally  points  to  the  doc- 
trine ;  and  when  it  is  considered  that  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
first  sin  to  his  posterity,  and  the  imputation  of  the  sins  of  God's 
people  to  their  surety  Saviour,  and  the  imputation  of  his 
finished  righteousness  to  them,  do  all  rest  upon  the  same 
ground,  and  must  all  stand  or  fall  together,  and  that  it  has 
been  found  in  fact,  that  those  who  deny  one  of  these,  do  ge- 
nerally deny  the  whole,  and  to  be  consistent,  must  necessarily 
do  so,  it  is  no  forced  conclusion,  but  one  which  seems  inevita- 
ble, that  the  sermon  does  really  reject  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation as  held  by  the  Pteformcrs,  and  as  taught  in  our  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  and  Catechisms;  that  it  does  not  teach  as  the 
answer  to  the  question  on  justification  in  our  shorter  Cate- 
chism asserts,  that  "  Justification  is  an  act  of  God's  free  grace, 
wherein  he  pardoneth  all  our  sins,  and  accepteth  us  as  rights 
eous  in  his  sight  only  for  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  imputp4 
to  us,  and  received  by  faith  alone.'''' 

It  is  not  satisfactory,  that  the  sermon  says,  that  "Christ  died 
in  the  place  of  sinners  ;"  that  it  speaks  of  *'  the  merits  of  the 
Son  of  God,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ" — of  "the  love  of  Christ," 
of  "  putting  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  of  being  "  willing  to 
drop  into  the  hands  of  Jesus,  and  to  be  saved  by  his  merit 
alone"  of  God,  "  sprinkling  on  the  soul  the  blood  of  Jesus,  and 
freely  pardoning  all  its  sins  ;"  since  this  language   may  be 


(      44      ) 

iused,  and  is  actually  used  by  some  who  explicitly  deny,  that 
Christ  took  the  law  place  of  sinners,  bore  the  curse  of  God's 
law  in  their  room  and  stead,  and  that  they  are  saved  only  by 
the  imputation  to  them  of  his  perfect  righteousness. 

On  the  whole,  the  Presbytery  express  their  deep  regret,  that 
Mr.  Barnes  should  have  preached  and  published  a  discourse, 
so  highly  objectionable,  and  so  manifestly,  in  some  of  its  lead- 
ing points,  opposed  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  Catechisms  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ;  they  earnestly 
recommend  to  Mr.  Barnes,  to  reconsider  and  renounce  the 
erroneous  matter  contained  in  his  printed  sermon,  as  specified 
in  the  foregoing  decisions  of  Presbytery,  and  with  a  view  to 
afford  time  to  Mr.  Barnes  for  reflection  and  reconsideration, 
in  reference  to  the  errors  of  his  sermon,  and  for  opportunity 
for  such  of  the  brethren,  as  may  choose  to  converse  freely  with 
him  on  the  subject,  the  Presbytery  do  suspend  their  final  de- 
cision on  the  case,  until  their  next  stated  meeting." 

This  minute  being  adopted,  it  was  moved  by  Mr.  Engles, 
"  that  Dr.  Green,  Mr.  M'Calla,  and  Mr.  Latta,  be  a  committee 
to  wait  on  Mr.  Barnes,  to  communicate  to  him  the  result  of 
the  deliberations  of  this  Presbytery  in  the  examination  of  his 
sermon,  and  to  converse  with  him  freely  and  affectionately  on 
the  points  excepted  to  in  that  sermon  ;  in  the  hope  and  expec- 
tation, that  the  interview  will  result  in  removing  or  diminish- 
ing the  difficulties  which  have  arisen  in  his  case  ;  and  that 
ihey  report  at  the  next  meeting  of  Presbytery."  To  the  sur- 
prise of  every  person  present,  Dr.  Ely  arose  to  oppose  this 
motion  as  containing  a  direct  insult  to  Mr.  Barnes;  and  to 
signify  the  intention  of  the  minority  to  vote  on  this  question. 
They  had,  as  it  will  be  recollected,  but  a  short  time  previous, 
declared  their  fixed  determination  not  to  vote  on  the  supposed 
unconstitutional  measures  pursued  against  Mr.  Barnes  :  this 
motion  evidently  constituted  a  very  prominent  part  of  these 
measures, — and  therefore — but  before  the  obvious  conclusion 
is  drawn,  the  reader  will  please  recollect,  that  the  doctrinal 
PART  of  these  measures  had  been  already  settled,  and  a  vote 
might  now  safely  be  given  without  vouching  for  the  orthoT 
doxy  of  Mr.  Barnes'  sermon. 

As  a  final  proceeding,  the  minority  signified  their  intention 
of  complaining  to  the  next  General  Assembly.  The  nature 
of  their  complaint  is  not  yet  known,  but  doubtless  it  is  grounded 
upon  some  point  of  order ! 

Before  we  conclude  this  narrative,  we  wish  to  oflfer  a  remark 
or  two  upon  the  exceedingly  unfair  statement  published  by 
Dr.  Ely  in  the  Philadelphian,  over  the  columns  of  which  he 
possesses  unlimited  control.  It  appears  wery  remarkable,  that 
in  that  account  there  should  be  no  copy  of  Dr.  Green's 
piinute,  which  was  adopted  by  the  Presbytery  ;  the  insertion  of 
Ji^hich  ^vas  necessary  as  a  finish  to  the  business  ;  and  which  ho 


(     45     ) 

could  readily  have  procured  by  applying  to  the  temporary 
clerk.  What  could  have  been  the  intention  of  this  onaission? 
Was  there  a  wish  to  conceal  from  the  churches,  the  grounds 
upon  which  the  Presbytery  condemned  Mr.  Barnes'  sermon  ? 

It  is  also  remarkable,  that  the  motion  offered  by  Mr.  Engles 
for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  seek  an  interview  with 
Mr.  Barnes,  although  it  forms  but  a  short  minute,  much  shorter 
than  Dr.  Mitchell's  motions;  siiould  have  been  presented  in  a 
mutilated  state  ;  whilst  a  very  convenient  et  cetera  completely 
throws  the  reader  into  the  dark  as  to  the  nature  and  intention 
of  that  motion.  Was  Dr.  Ely  fearful  that  the  entire  insertion 
of  this  motion  would  spoil  his  comment  ? 

It  is  remarkable,  that  Dr.  Ely  has  in  several  places  stated  as 
a  fact,  that  Mr.  Engles  was  heard  by  the  Presbytery,  in  offer- 
ing his  remarks  on  the  orthodoxy  of  Mr.  Barnes'  sermon,  and 
in  one  place,  that  he  "  was  heard  in  desultory  objections 
against  the  orthodoxy  of  Mr.  Barnes,  until  1  o'clock,  P.  M.," 
when  Dr.  Ely  well  knevv  at  the  time  he  was  penning  the  arti- 
cle, that  Mr.  Engles  did  no  more  at  the  times  specijied,  than 
perform  his  duty  as  the  Clerk  of  Fresbytery,  in  reading  the 
minute  of  Dr.  Green  by  paragraphs.  Can  there  remain  a 
doubt  that  this  misrepresentation  was  wilful,  and  that  it  was  de- 
signed in  some  way  to  throw  contempt  and  odium  upon  the 
individual  alluded  to,  as  if  he  had  been  exceedingly  loqua- 
cious and  officious  in  making  desultory  speeches  on  doctrine, 
when  he  did  no  more  than  obey  the  call  of  the  house  in 
reading  the  minute  offered  by  another  ! 

It  is  still  further  ver'y  remarkable,  that  Dr.  Ely  has  discov- 
ered that  the  minority  are  actually  the  majority !  This  is 
clearly  demonstrated  to  all  acquainted  with  arithmetical  leger- 
demain, and  is  at  least  satisfactory  in  proof  of  one  thing — that 
the  calculator  would  fondly  wish  to  be  in  a  majority.  But  if 
it  were  proved,  would  not  the  proof  come  too  late  !  He  that 
has  lost  a  battle,  has  but  little  credit  or  consolation  in  draft- 
ing a  plan,  according  to  which  he  might  certainly  have  won 
it !  But  let  us  scrutinize  this  calculation.  First,  he  adds  to 
the  minority  four  absent  members,  (one  of  whom,  the  Rev, 
Dr.  Wilson,  has  since  been  translated,  as  we  believe,  to  a  hap- 
pier world,)  because  it  is  morally  certain  that  they  would  have 
voted  with  the  minority;  then  he  inserts  Mr.  Barnes' name, 
as  voting  for  himself;  then  he  strikes  from  the  majority  two 
members  who  voted  for  the  condemnation  of  the  sermon,  be- 
cause they  merely  dissented,  when  a  particular  item  in  Dr. 
Green's  minute  was  adopted ;  then  he  includes  Mr.  Grier 
among  the  doubtful,  although  he  had  frequently  expressed  his 
desire  to  give  his  testimony  in  favour  of  orthodoxy,  and  was 
only  prevented  from  being  present  by  severe  indisposition; 
then  he  omits  any  mention  of  Mr.  Junkin,  although  he  was 
found  with  the  majority  in  the  Synod,  and  there  strongly  ob^- 


(     46     ) 

jected  to  the  sermon;  and  thus  the  case  is  clearly  proved! 
But  suppose  Mr.  Steel  and  Mr.  Janvier  be  restored  to  the  side 
upon  which  their  votes  were  given,  and  upon  which  their 
principles  constrain  them  to  stand;  that  Mr.  Grier  and  Mr. 
Junkin  be  added  to  the  same  side;  and  Dr.  Wilson's  name, 
and  Mr.  Barnes'  name  be  omitted,  how  will  the  case  then 
stand.     We  leave  Dr.  Ely  to  decide. 

In  the  account  furnished  in  the  Philadelphian,  it  is  still 
further  remarkable,  that  no  mention  is  made  of  the  fact,  that 
Dr.  Ely  was  the  only  member  of  the  Presbytery,  who  hazarded 
the  attempt  of  reconciling  the  sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes  with  the 
Confession  of  Faith  ;  whilst  Dr.  M'Auley,  Mr.  Sanford,  and 
some  others  of  the  minority,  intimated,  that  there  were,  un- 
questionably, points  in  the  sermon,  which  were  censurable. 

But  we  are  unwilling  to  extend  this  narrative,  by  alluding 
to  any  other  remarkable  features  of  the  account  furnished  in 
the  Philadelphian.  The  majority  have  no  reason  to  fear  the 
publication  of  a  true  and  honest  history  of  their  proceedings, 
nay,  it  is  what  they  most  sincerely  desire ;  fully  aware,  that 
when  idle  reports  shall  cease  to  circulate  ;  when  the  heats  of 
passion  subside,  and  when  judgment  shall  be  permitted  to 
pronounce  her  calm  decision,  they  shall  be  found  to  have  ad- 
vocated the  cause  of  truth,  and  to  have  exerted  their  humble 
influence,  in  guarding  the  purity,  and  strengthening  the  stabil- 
ity of  that  Church,  whose  prosperity  is  one  of  the  dearest  ob- 
jects of  their  hearts. 

POSTSCRIPT. 

Since  the  above  was  in  type,  Mr.  Barnes  has  published 
in  the  "Philadelphian"  the  elaborate  paper  which  he  read 
before  the  Synod  as  his  defence.  He  confirms  our  rep- 
resentation that  but  little  influence  was  produced  by  his  ex- 
planations ;  but  this  was  not  only  true  in  relation  to  the  Presby- 
tery, as  he  would  seem  to  intimate,  but  likewise  to  the  Synod. 
A  careful  perusal  of  this  defence  will  tend  to  justify  the  ex- 
ceptions taken  to  the  sermon,  as  will  probably,  be  shown 
more  fully  at  a  future  time.  That  it  is  plausible  in  some  res- 
pects, is  admitted  :  but  that  it  explains  and  obviates  the  ob- 
jections to  the  orthodoxy  of  the  sermon,  is  denied.  On  the 
subject  of  Original  Sin,  My.  Barnes  reiterates  his  denial,  that 
the  posterity  of  Adam  are  responsible  for  that  act  of  apostacy 
which  he  committed  as  a  federal  head,  and  then  proceeds 
to  affirm  in  justification  of  his  denial,  that  it  is  a  prominent  fea- 
ture in  the  original  structure  of  Calvinism,  that  a  personal 
identity  was  constituted  between  Adam  and  his  posterity,  and 
that  the  personal  sin  of  Adam  was  considered  as  the  personal 
sin  of  his  posterity,  and  that  it  was  imputed  to  them,  because 
it  was  their  own  personal  sin  !  That  is,  Calvinism  and  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  are  represented  as  holding  a  theory  upon  this 
subject  which  is  radically  absurd  ;  and  can  it  be  a  matter  of 


(   47   ; 

surprise  that  Mr.  Barnes  rejects  an  absurdity  !  Mr.  Barnes  ad- 
mits that  there  is  another  notion  of  imputation  which  is  the 
commonly  received  one  ;  which  is  this,  tliat  the  sin  of  Adam 
as  our  representative  is  set  over  to  our  account ;  but  this  he 
says  is  not  Calvinism,  but  an  invention  of  modern  times ! 
Thus  does  the  confession  of  jMr.  Barnes  prove,  that  the  Pres- 
bytery has  not  misinterpreted  his  sermon  in  charging  upon  it 
the  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as  commonly  re- 
ceived in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

On  the  subject  of  the  Atonement,  Mr.  Barnes  most  fully 
justifies  every  expression  in  the  sermon  ;  as  for  example, 
"  Christ  did  not  endure  the  penalty  of  the  law" — "  the  atone- 
ment of  itself  secured  the  salvation  of  no  one" — and  that 
"  it  had  not  respect  so  much  to  individuals  as  to  the  law 
and  perfections  of  God."  We  honestly  believe,  that  the 
denial  of  these  points  is  the  virtual  denial  of  the  work  of 
Christ ;  explanations  can  never  neutralize  the  poison  convey- 
ed in  these  expressions ;  they  must  absolutely  be  recalled  or 
stand  as  evidence  against  the  author  of  them.  Dr.  Owen,  the 
Professors  of  Princeton,  and  the  "Christian  Advocate  "  teach 
the  sufficiency  of  the  atonement  for  all  men,  as  affirmed  by 
Mr.  Barnes,  and  this  is  a  doctrine  generally  received  (Dr.  Ely  in 
his  recommendation  of  "  Gelhsemane,"  dissenting)  but  this  is 
widely  different  from  Mr.  Barnes'  view  of  the  atonement,  in 
which,  there  is  no  satisfaction  of  penalty  or  of  divine  justice,  no 
positive  efficacy,  and  no  reference  to  individuals,  or  in  other 
words,  a  satisfaction  made  to  the  law,  without  respect  to  any 
particular  violations  of  that  law,  which  is  just  no  satisfaction 
at  all. 

We  think  we  could  show,  from  Mr.  Barnes'  own  acknow- 
ledgments in  this  defence,  that  the  Presbytery  have  not  mis- 
judged in  a  single  material  point,  the  doctrines  of  the  sermon  ; 
but  for  this  we  have  not  at  present,  sufficient  time  or  space. 
We  must,  however,  remark,  that  Mr.  Barnes  gives  no  satis- 
factory account  of  the  omission  in  the  sermon  of  the  doctrine 
of  justification,  for  virtually  omitted  it  is,  because  it  has  no 
prominence  there  in  the  way  of  salvation,  and  is  but  once 
alluded  to  in  a  distant  and  obscure  manner.  If  the  half  column 
occupied  in  the  defence  on  this  subject,  had  presented  a  clear 
and  distinct  view  of  the  author's  sentiments  on  this  point,  it 
would  have  been  much  more  creditable  to  the  author,  than  the 
plan  he  has  pursued.  We  must  confess  we  have  a  difficulty 
in  the  admission  of  a  mere  avowal  on  this  point ;  for  we  natu- 
rally are  led  to  inquire,  does  Mr.  Barnes  admit  imputation  in 
his  notion  of  justification  •]  and,  if  so,  which  notion?  the  absurd 
one  charged  upon  original  Calvinism,  or  the  "  modern  inven- 
tion'?" we  are  inclined  to  believe  he  admits  neither,  and  to 
what  then  docs  his  notion  of  justification  amount? 

But  in  conclusion.  Mr.  Barnes  in  the  closing  paragraphs 
of  his  defence,  reflects  severely  and  bitterly  upon  ihe  conduct 


(     48     ) 

of  those  who  have  opposed  his  sermon,  and  makes  a  strong  ap-^ 
peal  to  public  sympathy  upon  the  recital  of  his  grievances* 
And  the  Editor,  in  assisting  the  attempt,  represents  Mr.  Barnes 
as  a  "  passive  lamb,"  no  doubt  under  the  slaughtering  hands 
of  his  butchers!  But  why  all  this  pathos?  Are  Mr.  Barnes' 
grievances  real?  has  not  his  sermon  been  condemned  upon 
substantial  grounds'?  has  he  not  confirmed,  in  his  own  defence, 
the  views  which  have  been  taken  of  that  sermon  9  The  Pres- 
bytery never  considered  Mr.  Barnes,  as  an  individual,  of  suffi- 
cient consequence  to  be  the  object  of  a  conspiracy,  or  as  the 
victim  of  a  systematised  persecution,  why,  therefore,  should  he 
attempt  to  secure  favour  by  urging  such  a  plea  "?  The  cry  of 
persecution  may  insure  temporary  popularity,  but  it  will  be 
but  temporary,  and  he  that  can  descend  to  such  a  device,  de- 
serves the  reward  of  his  ingenuity.  We  hope  the  public  will 
duly  appreciate  those  expressions  in  the  defence,  which  are 
designed  ad  captandum  vulgus,  or,  in  plain  English,  to  produce 
a  popular  impression,  and  still  be  induced  to  form  their  opin-" 
ion  on  the  case,  according  to  evidence. 


THE  ENI>v 


I 


r      ^' 


■^' 


